According to a Kodak survey:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/19/financial/f104852D35.DTL

Interesting article. I concur with the notion of the 'cut and paste' look. I've been trying to figure it out for a while, and I really do think its on an 'organic' level.

Even though the article is talking about still photos, I think the primary element that sets digital apart from film in still shots, is the same thing that sets it apart in motion pictures... the 'organic' nature of grain.

While the size of the grain in the emulsion determines the speed of the film, and the size is relatively uniform throughout a given film emulsion, the actual locations of those bits of grain are random. When we watch a motion picture film, we 'see' those bits moving and dancing around, albeit on an almost sub-concious level. Contrast that to the pixels that are fixed in their locations on a ccd, and you get that 'ultra clean, ultra sharp' look of 'video' in motion pictures. The same thing happens in still photography. In still pictures, I think that it makes the 'edges' of objects "Ultra sharp" "ultra hard"... that it makes things look 'cut and pasted' into the frame. Many people LOVE this aspect... it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just that the eye, or maybe it's the brain - can 'sense' that the defining line between objects doesn't look 'natural'... in the sense that the edges aren't somehow softer like they would be with film grain defining them.

At least thats my take on it.

I love my digital still camera, I shoot tons of pictures that I wouldn't 'waste' a shot with on film, I love how cheap it is to come home from a trip with a thousand photos... that become a carivore of time wading through.

But when I pull out an old negative and scan it into my computer, I am always amazed at how 'different' the image looks up on the computer screen, compared to a shot from my digital SLR.

I tried to describe the difference to my 'film is dead' friend once. "It's like this... Imagine you had to create a mural on a wall... using tiny square tiles, or billions of specs of sand... at a distance, the eye probably wouldn't see much of a difference... but at a certain level... it definitely would"

Quite unrelated to movies for several reasons:
1. Resolution-- DV can't yet get to the resolution needed for stills. Obviously. But it can do a pretty good job matching motion picture film.
2. Cost-- it's one thing to pay for film for stills. It's another to pay for a movie. Much more!
3. 75% refers to still photographers-- for the above reasons, it's not safe to assume that it's related, at all.
4. That's from Kodak. I'm not going to go as far as saying it's not reported accurately, but I'm sure they were careful to design a study that would be in their favor.

It is an article specifically about still photographers who make their living with their cameras. It doesn't claim to be anything else. As to what it is 'safe to assume' -

In terms of the Motion Picture Industry... the vast majority of Major Motion Pictures are STILL being shot on film. I'd guess it is still over Ninety percent. That's why its such a big deal when a production goes 'all digital'. (As opposed to the use of a DI at some point, a common practice nowadays.)

Now, when it comes to 'independent' filmmakers, news gathering,documentarians, industrial and event 'cameramen'... then yes, certainly Digital Video makes up more than Ninety percent of the market. These are the people who cannot afford the expensive shooting ratio that film would require.

I agree with most of your reasons, but I offer a different take . The frame rate of film is lower, and the grain noise animation allows us to perceive a greater rate of motion than is actually in the film. Very clean film would probably not be as interesting. As for the cut-n-paste look of digital, I'll point to overuse of sharpening, especially the unsharpmask. There is too much detail in digital pictures, and digital prints

To be completely honest, there are a VAST number of still photogs who stick to film for no reason better than comfort. Having lived with and around a number of working still photos, I've heard every reason on the planet why film is better... but the honest truth is that each reason given could be easily countered. Believe it or not, there are also a great number of high-fee ad photogs who still shoot film because they haven't a clue how to light, and rely on the dynamic range to save them. I've seen it first hand - bragging about how they light by eye, while the assistants run around furiously trying to save the photog's face. Also, on digital jobs, the capture station is assumed. The client sits at a 24" monitor and watches raw photos coming off the chip as quickly as they're fired. Film gives the photographer time to edit, and tone photos BEFORE showing the client. If you're being paid $15,000-$30,000 for a day job, do you want a monkey on your back?

And don't think that lighting by eye is unique to stills - American Cinematographer had a great article at one point about exposure meters (and how the majority of guys who brag about "lighting by eye" are usually from 2-6 stops off). For the time being, film still offers more exposure latitude which can certainly help if you're stabbing in the dark with your ratios.

There are certainly valid reasons why people choose film over digital capture in the still world (where the quality and price gaps aren't as large as in motion)... I'll just say that of the 30+ working photogs I've talked to in depth about this very topic, 30+ of them had their facts incorrect. And 30+ of them have since switched to digital full time (even for personal work).

Some even say that digital photography has the advantage now in terms of latitude too: for example see http://www.dlwaldron.com/digitalcameras.html.

Wow, there are some rediculous quotes in that survey:


"Film by its very physical nature is layers of grains of different colors," he said. "It's hard to describe, but it does actually have a micro three-dimensionality that you can see in that weird way."


I guess he thinks the Foveon sensor is 3-D too.


By contrast, he said, "digital pictures look very flat, and even the prints. ... Digital looks literally cut-and-pasted.


Preposterous. Digital only looks cut-and-pasted when it's been oversharpened or filtered.

The sooner Kodak accept that film isn't where their future lies and start throwing their R&D funds into building the world's best digital sensors (so good that all the digital camera companies want to licence Kodak sensors) the better I reckon.

I think the key to this is that they sent the survey to 40,000 photographers and only 9,000 of them responded. Of that 9,000, 75% still favor film. One could project that had the other 31,000 responded that this pattern would have held true, but perhaps most of those that replied were those who felt threatened by digital and wanted to strike a blow back so as to speak.

I know I am not a professional and I only know one true professional wildlife photographer. He is a digital convert. Of all of the people I know who have actually tried digital, and some of these are extremely talented and critical individuals, none, I repeat None! have expressed any desire whatsoever to go back to film.

A lady outdooor writer once lamented the modern technology and gave as an example a superb photograph of a hawk taken by her husband with a Nikon DSLR. She said this picture only consisted of digital pixels and lacked the realness of a film image. I guess she didn't realize that the film image was not real either, but just a bunch of silver-halide particles.

She also said digital images were viewed on computer monitors and were not real like a good print--that you couldn't hold them in your hand. I guess she never heard of printing a digital file.

I think the real problem is that the relatively low cost of shooting digital has enabled a lot of people to shoot enough images that they are able to perfect their skills. Some of the "professional" class may view this as a threat.

One could project that had the other 31,000 responded that this pattern would have held true, but perhaps most of those that replied were those who felt threatened by digital and wanted to strike a blow back so as to speak.

That's possible, but the sample size was adequate from a statistical perspective. What would be helpful here would be to see the actual wording of the questions and whether the 9000 respondents really prefer film or just have a lingering attachment to it - and how do their customers feel? What really matters here is that Kodak is getting wiped out by a global shift to digital photography, so what's the point of a survey saying that people are still fond of film?

That's definitely true

Of course, Kodak is the world's largest supplier of film. Does this mean that's all they do? C'mon, they are not oblivious to the world. Kodak has focused in recent years on three primary markets: digital photography, health imaging, and printing.

And in 2007:
On June 14, Kodak announced a technology advance for CCD and CMOS image sensors. The new sensor technology provides a 2× to 4× increase in sensitivity to light (from one to two stops) compared to current sensor designs. This design is a departure from the classic "Bayer filter" by adding panchromatic, or “clear” pixels to the RGB elements on the sensor array. Since these pixels are sensitive to all wavelengths of visible light, they collect a significantly higher proportion of the light striking the sensor. In combination with advanced Kodak software algorithms optimized for these new patterns, photographers benefit from an increase in photographic speed (improving performance in low light), faster shutter speeds (reducing motion blur for moving subjects), and smaller pixels (higher resolutions in a given optical format) while retaining performance. The technology is credited to Kodak scientists John Compton and John Hamilton[16]. Initially targeted for consumer markets such as digital still cameras and camera phones, the technology is expected to be available in early 2008.


They are not exactly swimming against the tide to digital photography, they very much plan to be a part of it, heck, they invented some of the digital photographic technologies in use today.

But if some people still like film, I'm sure Kodak will be happy to still make it for them.

I did some research to get the price to shoot large format film. 4x5" film cost min (outdated film from bhphoto) US$1.5 per slide

8x10" film cost US$8 per slide

Film Processing 4x5" cost NZ$8.35 8x10" cost NZ$19.30

To do a drum scanning of the slide film scan file size 350 +mb cost NZ$200.00

I don't think that I will shoot 1200 photos in one session using large format film. Even I can afford the price, I can not carry the weight of the 1200 slide film.

From what I guess, till now I shot around 100,000 photos in four years which might be someone lifetime takes to get these shots in old days. ;-)

100,000 photos might cost one million dollars in 8x10" format

Just my personal observation: A few years back the majority of all pictures in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition were shot on film. Things changed about 2 to 3 years ago. In last years contest the majority, about 2/3, was digital. I guess that this year 75% or 80% will be digital. So at least most wildlife photographers seem to have converted to digital.

For my wife and me there is no way back to film. We sold all our analog gear two years ago. It is very comforting to know, that the exposure is correct and that the camera is working properly when you spent a hell of a lot of money for a trip to the African bush shooting wildlife. In the olden days you easily ended up with a bunch of under-/overexposed slides because you didn't know, that the exposure meter of your camera was nuts.

If you are working for picture agencies, as my wife and I do, there is another aspect: many agencies accept only digital files these days. So you can as well use a digital camera in the first place.

Of course, Kodak is the world's largest supplier of film. Does this mean that's all they do? C'mon, they are not oblivious to the world.

Kodak has always been a great company, and as someone who lived near Rochester for many years, I've known people who worked there. But they're definitely having a hard time making the transition. Their stock is still trading where it was 5 years ago and is only half of what it was in 1999. See the following chart where Kodak is the blue line and Canon is the red line, it tells the whole story: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EK&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=caj

They're taking their medicine, but it looks like some difficult years ahead. See the following: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070928/kodak_fading_film.html?.v=1

Even as revenues in its traditional businesses tumble, Kodak is still leaning hard on high-margin film to generate the profits needed to see it through the most painful passage in its 126-year history.
_________

Kodak's work force also is contracting: its global payroll will soon slide to 34,000, half what it was five years ago. In Rochester, there will be fewer than 10,000 employees -- versus 60,400 in 1983.

Yep. The shift to digital is irreversible now -- Kodak's digital research operations are based at Kodak Park -- but Burley thinks Kodak "wasn't changing fast enough" before the arrival in 2003 of its current chief executive, Antonio Perez.They need to step it up pronto.
"I think Perez realizes that the company does have a lot to offer and can be successful in this new electronic system of image-making," Burley said. "But dramatic changes are required, and required quickly."

KODAK will survive, as they adapt. The question of course, is speed. Can they become 'IBM'??? "International Business Machines" primary business was making adding machines 'back in the day. MECHANICAL adding machines.

I think KODAK will adapt and thrive, but as the articles say, it's a painful process.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/92/0900688a80270a92/docks_100x80.jpg
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/1f/0900688a8061a91f/memory_cards_100x80.jpg
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/08/0900688a802fa508/batteries_100x80.jpg

They'll be fine.

The difference, though, is that they don't have a monopoly on the market, as they do with film.

when you spent a hell of a lot of money for a trip to the African bush shooting wildlife.

Hi Rainer,

How much cost involved for a trip to the African bush shooting wildlife?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

it depends very much on where and how you go. If you go on a four week trip to Botswana and want to have a private guide for the whole time (which is highly recommended for shooting wildlife) it can easily get as expensive as 10-15k$ plus international air fares. But of course you can do a camping trip for much less. However, you won't be able to get to the "wildlife hot spots" then. The Botswana government restricts access to the real interesting places and therefore it's very, very expensive. Alas!

Kenya and Tansania are less expensive but more crowded. Somtimes you have 20 vehicles near a lion sighting. Not very good for photography.

So think twice if you want to make money from wildlife photography. You don't get rich. But it's a lot of fun!

Hi Rainer,

Thanks for the answer.

I can not afford that. Pretty sad.

Regards
Leigh

Never mind get rich! Just clearing costs and not losing a fortune sounds like enough of a problem! OMG!

I would say that 90% of the shows I operate on remain 35mm (and as an indication of the relative budgets, 90% of the jobs I DP are HD...!)

I would certainly take that Kodak statement with a pinch of salt - 75% ?? I am confident that is certainly not the case here in the UK anyway. As a pro commercial and editorial photog of more than 25 years I have seen many changes over the years and have not shot any film now for the last five of them. Copy artwork onto 4x5 inch trannie was the last to go - at which point I closed my traditional lab facility.

Digital capture has many advantages over film but it's certainly true that post production computer time is now a significant factor. On my commercial location work for example I have found the overall time spent on the assignment to be about the same, but the time split ratio has changed dramatically.

In the past I would have spent a long time shooting Polaroids etc to get the final image on film at the time of shooting. Now I can spend much less time on the actual location shoot, but that time saving is cancelled out by the much longer post production of the raw images.

Digital cameras have a fixed native resolution so any assignment needing really large images - billboard posters for example or automobile advertising stuff etc - could still perhaps benefit from being shot on film since this can then be scanned at very high resolution. However, modern interpolation software does an incredible job of increasing the files generated by digital cameras.

Do I miss the "good ol' days" of film? ... Nope ... not a bit!

Peter

Hi Rainer,

Do you have a website to have a look at your art?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

it depends very much on where and how you go. If you go on a four week trip to Botswana and want to have a private guide for the whole time (which is highly recommended for shooting wildlife) it can easily get as expensive as 10-15k$ plus international air fares. But of course you can do a camping trip for much less. However, you won't be able to get to the "wildlife hot spots" then. The Botswana government restricts access to the real interesting places and therefore it's very, very expensive. Alas!

Kenya and Tansania are less expensive but more crowded. Somtimes you have 20 vehicles near a lion sighting. Not very good for photography.

So think twice if you want to make money from wildlife photography. You don't get rich. But it's a lot of fun!

Hi Leigh,

yes, we have a website. Since you ask specifically I hope it's ok to post the URL here:

http://www.hoffmann-photography.com

It's not only wildlife, though.

Hi Leigh,

yes, we have a website. Since you ask specifically I hope it's ok to post the URL here:

http://www.hoffmann-photography.com

It's not only wildlife, though.

Wow ;-)

May I ask how you protect yourself from the big cat?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Wow ;-)
May I ask how you protect yourself from the big cat?
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I'm afraid, we are hijacking this thread, but the big cats are really no big problem. The mosquitoes are! And the "Gentle Giants" can be quite, well, 'un'gentle at times. But that's why I recommend to have a good guide.

I think the key to this is that they sent the survey to 40,000 photographers and only 9,000 of them responded. Of that 9,000, 75% still favor film. One could project that had the other 31,000 responded that this pattern would have held true, but perhaps most of those that replied were those who felt threatened by digital and wanted to strike a blow back so as to speak.


Agreed. The survey involves a selective response, made famous by Shere Hite when a ridiculously high number (high 90's) of her audience responded that they had extramarital affairs. Survey methods often neglect to mention the number of surveys conducted and whether the reports an average of those surveys or just one that supports.

Most Kodak "pro" customers would use film since Kodak doesn't have offerings in the DSLR market comparable to Nikon and Canon. If you read the article, there is no single line claiming that 75% of photographers *favor* film .

From the Kodak article:
"75 percent of the 9,000 who responded said they will continue to use film even as they embrace digital imaging."

This is marketing (fancy word for selling) speak for unquantifiable sales, as there is no mention of the volume of film used.

I'd had enough of the sterile and predictable shots my Canon Eos 5D were giving me..... so I made my own stills film camera.
I shot all the photos on film that was nearly 20 years it's sell by date(Nov 1988!).

Click and have a look at the results - http://www.pbase.com/philkneen/homemade_camera

Nice bokeh from that Zorki lens.

There is definitely something romantic about the style of film capture for stills. I shot my mentor's wedding two weeks ago, almost entirely digital. Surrounded by former mentors and colleagues, all of whom knew basically everything there is to know about the gear we all use, I still managed to shock them a bit. I pulled out my speed graphic and shot some type 55 and some fujipan acros. Half the fun is surprising a photographer with something they haven't seen in a long time or perhaps ever. And especially for those people, it's just plain more fun to ham it up for something as antiquated as a graflex! It's certainly less threatening than a 1D, although when the laymen asked what it is, I could hear about 4 people describing it as, "an attachment that snaps onto the Canon body, it's digital still but it looks traditional." haha. (Note that there is such a device, made by Cambo)

In the end, after proper processing and drum scanning, it's an expensive toy. The images look phenominal, and certainly have their own unique quality, but I know for a fact I could have produced similar, excellent shots in those situations using digital capture, right down to the DOF. It's more organic, and scanning the negs to full rebate is more "real" than applying a "film edge border" to a digital file.... but it's certainly more of a novelty than anything. Were I shooting landscapes for 40x50 prints, there would be no question in my mind which system I'd use. But, for anything below 20", it's become a matter of personal taste and efficiency. eh, novelty's fun every now and then!

oh, and btw - Bowhaus here in LA does a phenominal and relatively inexpensive job of drum scans.

Back in the mid seventies, I worked for a custom color photo lab. They put me in the "LARGE PRINT" Room. The primary reason was I am six feet four, I could stand on the floor, and crank the enlarger head up to the ceiling, and I could take a sixty by forty sheet of PAPER out of the box and lay it on the vacuum easel without crimping it! Man, printing from 4x5 negs was a blast!

so you're basically obsolete now?

hahah