Where is the film/ digital line crossed?

[JKlebPhoto]

Assuming you belive that film can be surpassed by digital (I do), where do you think that line is crossed?

[JKlebPhoto]

I was going to add a poll to this, but I don't see where to do that.

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by JKlebPhoto

Assuming you believe that film can be surpassed by digital (I do), where do you think that line is crossed?

It all depends on what one means by "surpassed". Is it when more publications accept digital files for publication over film or transparency? If so, then its already happened.
Cheers,
rfs

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by JKlebPhoto

I was going to add a poll to this, but I don't see where to do that.

Only mods or admins or the owner can add polls. Polls always need to be used sparingly otherwise they lose their impact. I've been on sites where everyone can post a poll and pretty soon they become meaningless. The question you pose is better left as a discussion question because it is difficult to even define what one really means by "surpasses".

Cheers,
rfs

[PhotosbyChuck]

Surpassed how?

- More popular? % of camera sales - digital camera sales exceed film camera sales already
- More resolution? Already happened with 16+ MP sensors (35mm film was argued to range from 13 - 16 MP)
- More latitude? Nope, not yet (negative film, anyway)

So when you say exceed...what do you mean?

[Kirk]

I saw or read something like this recently. Can't remember the artical or the show, most likely the Discovery channel though. They we're interviewing a number of people that we're using Polaroid instant cameras. Kodak announced that after this year or next, they will no longer be producing that instant film. So people such as researchers & dentists would be forced to find an alternative digital solution. The biggest turn off from those interviewed was the extra equipment that would be required to process and produce the results in the field, as well as the sensitivity of the digital cameras & equipment.

They all agreed that its easier to just click the button and wait the 30 seconds for the film to develop on its own. They also all said that they just like the feel and look better.

I agree with them, in this case the simpler solution is best. I would assume it all depends on what the application is.

[JKlebPhoto]

Don't you love widely interpreted questions.

I mean all of the above. And not so much has it, but at what point did it happen?
Ex. We know that digital now has greater resolution than film, but was it at 16mp, or 6mp, or 3mp, etc. Technically it's around 6mp, but where did it become a relevent contender. What was the turning point for the professional market and the consumer market? Think of this as hashing out the "Rise of Digital" for the sake of history. Just curious as to where people place the timeline pointers at.

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by JKlebPhoto

Don't you love widely interpreted questions.

I mean all of the above. And not so much has it, but at what point did it happen?
Ex. We know that digital now has greater resolution than film, but was it at 16mp, or 6mp, or 3mp, etc. Technically it's around 6mp, but where did it become a relevent contender. What was the turning point for the professional market and the consumer market? Think of this as hashing out the "Rise of Digital" for the sake of history. Just curious as to where people place the timeline pointers at.

I think it will be when the big name magazines started accepting digital files as their primary method of photo submission rather than transparencies.
Cheers,
rfs

[JKlebPhoto]

I think it will be when the big name magazines started accepting digital files as their primary method of photo submission rather than transparencies.

I thought some were already. I know Playboy has switched their in house studio to digital.

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by JKlebPhoto

I thought some were already. I know Playboy has switched their in house studio to digital.

That was my point. The big name magazines have already made the switch.
Cheers,
rfs