« America's discovery rediscovered | Main | The broadband dance » Who needs film?Nikon is doing away with most of its film cameras, which means that my old Nikon F will become a real museum piece. (I no longer use the Nikon or my Canon EOS, favoring the very portable digital Nikon Coolpix 3100 – I'm on my second one, in fact, having worn the first out by carrying it everywhere in my pocket. Why would anyone use film when digital is cheaper, generally easier, and immediate? The only down side I see with the 3100 is lag, but I've factored that into my thinking by now – and I can always upgrade to a higher-end digital SLR where the lag is barely noticeable. [Link] jon posted this at 8:53 AM |
read weblogsky! latest posts: |
Comments
Well I need film because
It has a larger color space
It is more archival than digital media like the plastic of CDs
Many galleries and art schools still want images on slides. You can still use a film recorder but every time you transfer from one media to another you lose something.
Transparencies for high quality reproduction want 4x5 transparencies.
Anyway, I have two polaroid cameras, two film cameras and two digital cameras. But I don't have a printer at home. But I do know Photoshop upside and all around.
I wish there will remain both analog and digital photography. But times change. It's getting difficult to find SX-70 polaroid film and the camera that uses it does things nothing else can.
I should get a upscale Nikon, but I'm a tight wad.
Recently and have been making images the time intensive way with sticks with hair on one end and minerals and dies mixed with vegitable oils spread on fabric. So why did I ever get a college degree in Photography back in the 60s
Posted by: bazooka | January 16, 2006 4:23 PM