BootsnAll Travel Community

As a professional photographer film is still the only real answer for me, for professional photographs.

A 35mm slide can be scanned at high resolution to produce a file of up to about 100 Megabytes, which isn't usually nessecary but you never know.

The best portable digital cameras produce 18 Mb, which you then have to store electronically.

Such cameras still cost thousands of dollars as well.

That said, a digital camera; which produces small files that can be sent as attachments to your e-mails; is a fun way to share your trip with the unfortunates who stayed home.

I've been looking at these more seriously lately and the one I'm currently hot for is the Kyocera S3. It's very (very) small and has good features.

Eventually there will be no choice.

The consumer market drives the photo industry, let there be no question, it does. Once most of the consumers are using digital cameras it will no longer be profitable for Kodak, Fuji and the others to offer film and that will be that.

Polaroid is already 'Chapter Eleven' (going bankrupt) and if they survive it will be on the strengths of their new digital products.

I, for one, will miss the character that different types of film add to a photograph.

I'm not the least bit afraid of computers if that's floating through your head, I've been working with digital techniques for over ten years now and love the creative possiblities that Photoshop provides. I scan my slides and negatives, process in Photoshop, then print on an Epson inkjet.

In some ways I embrace digital image capture, environmental impact of photo chemistry for one thing.

For now, however, film captures more detail in the 35mm format. If you want to start talking about medium format it's a bit different, but not really appropriate for travel purposes at the end of the day.

Cheers, Aaron

You can't help but wonder, I guess. You're right, too, film will eventually probably not be used, unless there's an artist or severely specialty market.

I know for me I do like the convenience of a digital camera - snapshots and the like - but when it comes to "serious" photography, there's just something about black-and-white in an SLR. It's similar with my writing: I often draft and edit on-screen, but at the same time, there are other aspects of writing that I do longhand, and I doubt that I will ever stop carrying a notebook. That notebook will be supplemented by computers, voice recorders and the like - I love technology - but there will always be a notebook.

Similar, perhaps, with cameras. Digital will be dominant; film may eventually stop being used entirely, but at the same time I'm willing to bet that more than a few artists and artisans won't give up film. Perhaps it's that more hands-on feeling, of adjusting the camera settings, and then later working in the darkroom to create a print; perhaps it's just that feeling of being more down-to-earth, more connected with the work.

Who knows...

I'm with you Ant.

I love what I can do with the tech. tools.

I'm happy to use a digital camera when it's appropriate. The computer is great for processing photos and writing e-mails, editing stories.

When I want to get serious I prefer to shoot on film and write on paper.

I think you're right about the way of film as well. While the myriad of different films available now will mostly go out of production, there will probably be a few old favorites on offer for quite a while.

In the case of black and white materials the shelf life is really very good. When the axe starts to fall there will be a lot of artists making a run on the last of the film stocks. You could put a few (or quite a few) bulk rolls of Tri-X, Plus-x or whatever in the freezer and be set for life. The chemistry for black and white is fairly simple and will still be there.

Color materials, especially slides, are less stable and the chemistry is complex so we're more dependant on the industry there.

On the plus side, digital cameras are getting better all the time, the high end ones are still quite expensive though and will likely remain so because most people don't need them.

A digital camera can actually capture more dynamic range than film, in fact they have to put on special filters to block infra-red and ultra-violet because the CCD chip sees it all.

The problems are: that highlights and shadows tend to produce 'noise', or funny bits of color where they don't belong; and that the file sizes for high quality images are quite large, writing them to disk takes time, storing them takes loads of memory, compression schemes aren't perfect; also the camera needs power and if you travel to the back of beyond that can be a very big problem.

Engineers at several big corporations are working hard to minimize those problems and they're making progress, if somewhat slowly.

Cheers, Aaron

I believe that film (both still and motion picture) will stand the test of time as a true artform. Just as editing film on computers has replaced the more time consuming cutting and splicing on a flatbed, many filmmakers still prefer the old school versus the constant changing technology.

I think film will be the standard until the digital technology is perfected and more accesible to the general public. At this point I am still skeptical about picking up a digital camera because it will likely be obselete in less than a year and I'd rather spend my money on film and processing costs. Besides, I have not been impressed with the digi cams I have seen/used. They remind me of overpriced hi-tech polaroids. Film will always be superior in my mind.

Digital cameras do not need ghastly chemistry to make colour pictures.

The ink used by most inkjet printers for digital is organic and i am told drinkable !!

If you want to save the planet then maybe digital is a small way of doing it.

http://homepage.mac.com/andy_eakins/PhotoAlbum5.html

here are some pics taken with a small Sony DSC f505

I echo aarongeis' sentiments.

I'm also a working photojournalist but probably a little closer to full digital.

There's a lot of satisfaction in shooting a good roll of tranny, and it certainly sorts the 'sheep from the goats', but the convenience and hassle-free nature of digital is a joy.

I've had a Canon D30 for nearly a year and have shot only a dozen or so rolls in that time.

I rarely deal with publishers who insist on original trannies. Truth be known, I avoid them anyway. Unless you're working for National Geographic or Vogue (and I'm not) high quality digital is usually fine.

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

Personally I don't think digital cameras make good travel companions and here is why. They are much more expensive that a typical point and shoot (at least 500 bucks after you purchase the camera, media, warranty, batteries, etc). (Its more fragile too!) It constantly needs to be feed it batteries requring you to carry a lot of weight, spend a lot on batteries or play the recharging game. And of course the major problem is storage! You have to do one or more of the following: reduce size/quality of the picture, carry a lot of memory cards ($), get a digital wallet ($$$), or pray for internet cafes. And your reward for all this is lower quality pictures!

A point and shoot film cameras on the other hand are cheap and durable. Don't require as many batteries. And film is easy to get and easy to carry.

However if you are going to a quick tour or your going to be stationed at a home base where you can off load your pictures and recharge your batteries digital might be your best option.

Digital cameras just arent there yet. Give them a couple years and they will have lower power requirements, surpass film quality, and kiosks will be all over the place to off load your memory cards until then go film.

Oh! Invariably someone is going to point out problems with film cameras and x-rays, so I just want to say that magnetic and flash memory is just as susceptible as film!

[This message was edited by Kyle on 25 April 2003 at 10:38.]

[This message was edited by Kyle on 25 April 2003 at 10:56.]

Eax,
Excellent photos man! And with a small point and shoot too! How did you get the spherical effect in the times square photograph?

More and more people are buying digital camera - I work at Black's (a Canadian photo chain), and our digital offerings are becoming wider in terms of features and prices.

However, I find the people who are buying digital are the people who aren't going to be away for a long time. Since I'm addicted to travelling I always talk to people about where they're going and how long they're going to be away. I find, at least in our market, people are less willing to trust digital when they're halfway across the world and want film. A few concerns that have been raised is that apparently digital cameras are more sensitive than film ones if they get banged around or something.

I don't know. It's going to be a huge, never ending debate! All I know is that I bought a new camera in February, it was a film SLR and I plan to bring it with me on my trip to Copenhagen and when I go travelling after graduation.