In article , PeterN
wrote:

My phone can take pictures? Son of a gun, so it can... Meanwhile, I
just spent a couple of hundred bucks to have my Nikon F100 body tuned
up.

you're the lone exception.


Another airline survey?

city bus.

i have posted an image of a professional NY photographer, who still uses
film.

that makes two.

meanwhile, billions of digital photos are taken every day and uploaded
to various online services, nearly all of which with smartphones. more
than one *trillion* photos were taken in 2017.

B&H
Adorama

Both of the above sell a lot of film cameras.

nowhere near as many as they used to.

go ask them how their film sales have dramatically dropped off in
recent years.

I wonder why a lot of
professional photographers don't listen to you.

they don't need to. they already are on the digital bandwagon.

very, very few photographers are still shooting film and that number is
shrinking rapidly.

https://petapixel.com/2015/04/24/12-...-choose-to-sho
ot-film-over-digital/

what a joke. that is a completely bogus article. every single point is
*wrong*.

#1. Film Photography Was Already Perfect

nothing is perfect, however, film is a lot *less* perfect than digital.

that also contradicts his other point, #11, 'for the imperfections'.
either film is perfect or it's not. it can't be both.

#2. Higher Dynamic Range

absolutely false.

#3: It Slows You Down

nothing prevents shooting slowly with digital, and that's actually a
drawback. it's nothing more than rationalizing what is a limitation.

#4. The Pictures Are Permanent

no they definitely aren't.

film fades and/or can be damaged by moisture, mold, fire, physical
damage (e.g., tears, stains), etc.

digital does not deteriorate in any way and can easily last forever,
much to the chagrin of the people in the photos.

#5. The Chemicals Smell Oh So Good

apparently the author has been inhaling a bit too much, and more than
just photo chemicals.

#6. You Don¹t Need Electricity

good luck trying to print a photo or show a slide without electricity.

good luck trying to take a photo without electricity. film cameras
needed batteries to power the exposure meter, electronic flash (or
flash bulbs), and winder/motor drive.*

electricity is not exactly hard to find either.

he's grasping.

* selenium meters don't need batteries but they're difficult to find
and not that accurate. magicube flash cubes don't need batteries, but
good luck finding those either, plus they only work with instamatic
style cameras, not an slr the author presumably would be using.

#7. It ³Just Looks Better²

no it definitely does not.

digital has significantly higher resolution, dynamic range and colour
accuracy than film.

not only that, but digital gets *better* as technology improves.

modern displays show a wider range and more accurate colours as well as
a wider dynamic range than older displays did.

today's raw converters, noise reduction and other image processing
produces better results than in the past.

nevertheless, for those who want the 'film look', the quality can be
downgraded very easily.

#8. A Digital Photograph is Just a Pixel Mosaic

meaningless twaddle.

a film photograph is just a bunch of grains.

everything is just a bunch of molecules.

#9. Film Cameras Are Inexpensive

only because nobody wants them, with the exception of rare collectibles
which are not purchased to be used.

he's also neglecting the ongoing cost of film and processing, which
quickly adds up the more photos that are taken.

digital not only produces better results, but is cheaper to operate!

#10. To Be DifferentŠ A Talking Point

one can be different while shooting digital.

walk around with this:
https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/05/bleurrrgh.jpg

https://www.wired.com/2010/05/rainbo...requires-sungl
asses-to-use/

#11. For the Imperfections

that contradicts #1, where he said film was perfect.

nevertheless, the imperfections of film can be added to any digital
image, assuming one wants them.

#12. The Element of Surprise

that is not unique to film cameras.