[redrockcoulee]

Maybe but still there is an issue with film for a wide-spread return. If you are shooting where money is on the line, digital really helps ensure you captured the money shot in addition to its work flow. And on the lower end of the photography spectrum where the masses are, you have people getting their pictures now. Are they going to give that up?

There are working pros who would argue that film actually has an easier workflow and spend less time processing and more time creating and that digital interferes with the creative process on a shot. And of course others that would disagree with those pros. The point is that your second point could be argued by both mediums. And a pro should know if they have the money shot almost all the time. Often it matters not film or digital you either get the shot or you will not get a second chance.

I never heard people who shoot film asking digital shooters to stop shooting digital. But perhaps we finally have reached the stage where any photographer should be comfortable shooting what works for them and the situation they are in rather than the digital/film debate. I shoot both but if I could only shoot one it would be film but why would I limit myself.

There are probably better access to more films now for most people than ever before with the internet and Eastern European films and let us not forget that even though the two major players have dropped films they have also added or improved others. Verichrome and SuperXX were dropped long before digital came along.

[eddie1960]

There are working pros who would argue that film actually has an easier workflow and spend less time processing and more time creating and that digital interferes with the creative process on a shot.

i would agree with this, the big thing is the impact on fees people seem to think it should be cheaper now that you shoot digital because there is no lab fee. true but there is the Pp time involved
Dropping the films at the lab picking up proofs and reviewing is much simpler and doesn't requie me to be an expert in more than one area like digital does. I don't nee to be a darkroom ex[pert and pro printer for film, but for some reason it's expected with digital

[tibbitts]

i would agree with this, the big thing is the impact on fees people seem to think it should be cheaper now that you shoot digital because there is no lab fee. true but there is the Pp time involved
Dropping the films at the lab picking up proofs and reviewing is much simpler and doesn't requie me to be an expert in more than one area like digital does. I don't nee to be a darkroom ex[pert and pro printer for film, but for some reason it's expected with digital

I hadn't thought about it but it's interesting that PP seems to be done more in-house now, while, particularly in the color film/paper era, the same functionality seemed to be outsourced more often. While the equipment requirements may be now be less for digital, it seems like the skills for PP would be just as unique as were the skills involved in film (color balancing, retouching, etc.)

Paul

[eddie1960]

I hadn't thought about it but it's interesting that PP seems to be done more in-house now, while, particularly in the color film/paper era, the same functionality seemed to be outsourced more often. While the equipment requirements may be now be less for digital, it seems like the skills for PP would be just as unique as were the skills involved in film (color balancing, retouching, etc.)

Paul

given my hatred for digital pp i think about it all the time. funny because i actually like the darkroom

[tuco]

given my hatred for digital pp i think about it all the time. funny because i actually like the darkroom

I like doing my BW printing but I really had no love for making my own color prints. Even with an affordable color analyzer I have, it often took many attempts to get a good print and that is a big improvement over no color analyzer at all. It takes really expensive equipment to crank out color prints in volume, I'd say. I'd rather scan a color negative and print that way for me.

[ChrisPlatt]

film...has an easier workflow...spend less time processing and more time creating...digital interferes with the creative process...

I agree absolutely, 100%.

Chris

[Vertex Ninja]

I think film will be around for a very long time, especially B&W. People were also capturing images long before film was mass produced. Even if the big companies stop making film, people will still make their own materials and small companies will step up to fill the niche.

I often wonder if in 50 or 100 years, historians will see a gap in the amount of preserved images. There is no doubt that digital can be archival, but will we continue to move these images onto new storage devices, and then pass that torch to those that inherit them. Will these storage devices just end up in a recycle bin or landfill never to be seen again. I wonder if there will be another Vivian Mair like discovery in the digital age. Will we see storage boxes full of hard disks and old computer equipment at auction like we do old prints and negatives. I know this argument has been done to death, and I don't personally take a strong stance on either side. Even still, I can't help but find the whole question of archiving interesting and I wonder how it will all pan out.