End of it's life?

[Mike]

So when does film become redundant? It really feels like the classic film is going the way of the dodo and is fast becoming irrelevant. I can't help but feel that the ease of digital is making the life of a film photographer very difficult and soon it will become unconventionally artistic to use film to show deliberately grain filled images.

Is there anyone left here who uses a film camera, develops their own film or prints their own photographs?

[Walter Brooks]

Recently heard a Radio 4 item of students who started on digital capture are now turning to film cameras 'to learn about photography' [sic]. Enough of us at the Club [including those converts who want to revisit the pleasure of film capture/ processing]; and plenty more on the Film and Darkroom User Forum. Is there a compelling argument for me to give up film other than a complete end of manufacture of film based products?

[John]

I have heard that there is a resurgence of interest in film photography and that some specialist emulsions and chemicals are being re-introduced. It may never be the volume of product that it once was, but I think it will survive for a long time yet.

[mark dyson]

Yes I use film, develop the film and then print it in the darkroom, also I can scan the negs and put it into photoshop like the rest of the digital users and print it or make dpi's. My camera is totally manual, manual focusing and has no meter and is a joy to use. On a personal note, learning to use film gives you a better grounding in photography than starting straight into digital. I can see the benefits of digital for the pros and the photo agency's as they can shoot a assignment and send the images to the editor in minutes and the agency's have less overheads and with the amount of digital images on the web they can charge pence for them. Digital is not the be all and end all of photography, neither is it better, it is different. Film has more scope for the photographer but is harder to do but once this is learned it is a very rewarding process.

[thomasru]

Hi I still use film though I do often think I'll go digital. For me though I think it would have to be a M9. Maybe one day I'll go that way, at least I'll have a few lens to fit. I just cannot bring myself to sell my M6 though, people are still paying lots of money for them on ebay, but if I do change I think I'll put mine in the china cabinet (on show). It will be the most expensive item in there !!!!!

TomR

[sunsworth]

Rather like Thomas I have an M6 that I could never imagine selling. We've been to too many places and taken too many photographs for that.

As for film, I suspect it'll be around for a long time. I feel the writing is probably on the wall for slide and print colour film, but I think black and white will survive. I recently rescanned a few Tri-X negatives, and although my M8 might produce cleaner results with more detail, film still has something that digital doesn't. The day Kodak abandons Tri-X, that's the day film is about to die.

[mark dyson]

I think film will be around for a long time yet. I shoot 6x6 and I am going to try some Velvia and the cost of process is just under a fiver (unmounted) and I can get it scanned to 18meg files for £12.00. Having a darkroom I am thinking of trying to producing some digital neg (printed on some clear film and contact printing them. Film is a very versatile medium and I will also be doing some camera less photographs well.