FILM WILL NEVER DIE !!
ANYONE who thinks film is dead is a completly devoid of any understanding about the industry. Film is used in many more applications than you are aware of.
Today's pro cameras are already able to capture at least as much information as the average 35 mm film.
Actually quality is so good that many professionals, even in the advertising business, now prefer digital!
These cameras may be still too expensive for thae average amateur (but so are analog pro cameras...), but prices are falling rapidly, so, the same level of quality may be soon available in the average SLR price range.
Even cheap digital cameras are good enough now to give you poster-size prints that you can't distinguish from film-based prints.
So, wake up! Digital and analog may have different applications, but quality is not a relevant criterion anymore.
FILM WILL NEVER DIE !! - deves027
reply ANYONE who thinks film is dead is a completly devoid of any understanding about the industry. Film is used in many more applications than you are aware of.
I hate to disagree wirth you on 5this, but you are wrong. There is NO inexpensive camera which will give the same results as a 35 mm shooting velvia or pan x film. Even the "pro" slr digitals cannot compare on a large blowup. I have saee 30X 40 FT blowups from 35 mm film. I don't think any digitl camera will do that. All the digitals are noisy if you use tham at ISO above 200 except the Canon Digital EOS. But they are noisy about 800 or higher. I can and have shot 1600 ans 3200 with B&W 35 mm film and made posters from them. I can certainly tell the difference between a poster from film and poster fromn a digi. Maybe a med format digital back on a hasse or bronica will give the results of a 35, but then film in the same cameras will outperform the digi hands down.
I agree that film will not be phased out in favour of the digital format. By the same token you cannot compare an image captured as a JPEG file to film quality when printed any size larger than 8x12. The RAW file format cannot be compared to the JPG file format but it can be compared to 35mm film. The RAW file format is to digital what the latent image is to film. Just as the silver halide crystals contain a latent image after exposure so does the RAW image file. Only after post processing either medium can you judge the ability of each to meet your needs. I am not sure if my 6.3MP DSLR could match the quality of my 35mm Provia F slide film in a 30x40 foot print comparison but I am sure that anyone with the facilities to produce a 30x40 foot print could source the expertise to manipulate a RAW image file to the nth degree where the prints would be surprising similar.
30 x 40 foot from a 35 mm ?? who are trying to bullshit ???
Believe it or not. One can achieve suberb results from enlarging a 35mm negative to a 30 x 40. I've done it many times. I would be glad to shot you some examples. email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
OOOOOOOOooh not 30 x 40 Feet! I thought they meant 30 x 40 inches!