Does anyone still use non-digital cameras?

diehardbiker said:
This is not true, I have accidently dropped film in water and it came out just fine.. That is IF after the film has exposed and dropped in water. Do not take it out, just leave it there and take to processor and they will take care of it.

Anyway, this is pointless because films will eventually be gone forever, perhaps in a year or two from now.
Click to expand...

depend.. otherwise, it sucks anyway.
 
Don't they still have to use film in professional photography? like with darkroom.

And forensics w/ crime scenes, most definitely need film in there for some evidence processing.
 
diehardbiker said:
Kodak stopped making these Kodachrome films. They have retired them, I think they had last batch made last year.


Time to switch to Digital. Even though it is true that it may be cheaper that way but once the stock deplete then the cost will skyrocket.

I haven't seen 35mm film for years. Sticking with Digital technology.
Click to expand...

but 35mm Fuji films still be selling now.
 
posts from hell said:
I was shooting in the mountains over the weekend with my Nikon N80. Used five rolls of film.
Click to expand...

That sound like a lot of fun. I miss using my Nikon , it is broken and I never got a new one. I wish I had it last night as the sky was was beautiful.
 
I haven't used any of those old cameras in a very long time.

I did have a friend who had a couple 3D cameras. Those were cool.
 
naisho said:
Don't they still have to use film in professional photography? like with darkroom.

And forensics w/ crime scenes, most definitely need film in there for some evidence processing.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact there are a lot of photographers who still use large format film. Even in the magazine and newspaper industry. However, digital format is pretty much the choice of many in the mainstream media industry. They rely on it since they need everything to be ready on the spot.

I use a digital camera, I love it. Better than spending money on film rolls over the long run.

Film is still superior to this day. The digital format is getting there though. Many movies are filmed digitally these days. The majority are still shot on film though. That's a good thing if you ask me. Especially when it comes to remastering movies in high resolution for the home video industry.

Regarding the forensics science... they are starting to use DSLR cameras more often these days. I'm pretty sure the admission rules on evidence varies by the location though. So it either could get accepted or rejected.
 
Wirelessly posted (Samsung Epix (i907))

I still see 35mm films sold in stores today. Digital cameras mostly exist and there are even disposable film cameras out there, too. Not as common as you would see in the past. I bought my first digital camera in 2000 and have stopped using film since then.
 
Wirelessly posted

I still have my camera that requires film. I haven't used it in ages. Something is wrong with the shutter. I think its a Pentex camera.
 
:wave: Jiro...
<EMP>

actually, my hubby is into photography on a serious hobby-ist/could-be-for-hire basis and so we are sometimes in camera shops and I do still see people buying film and inquiring about non-digital cameras.
 
Reba said:
I took several photography and photojournalism courses while I was in the Navy. We started with the very basics of photography in theory, field, and lab. I felt like I was Matthew Brady when I hauled around my camera and gear in a large wooden box (it looked like a small coffin.) I had to set up the tripod, attach the large camera, crank out the bellows, load the plates, and drape the black cloth over my head.

From that I advanced to the Speed Graflex. I felt like I was in a black and white movie. :lol:

Here's a picture of a guy with one, if you're not familiar with it:

The Graflex Speed Graphic FAQ

I finally worked my way up to 35mm with absolutely nothing automatic on it. At least I could carry that case on one shoulder! :lol:

I loved the lab work; all that dodging and burning goin' on. :giggle:

Most of our work was black and white prints. We did a few color slide projects.

We made our own camera flash shields, and dodging and burning tools. Had to carry around boxes of gel filters, different speed films, and lots of other equipment. It's a good thing I was young and in shape!

Our student darkrooms at one school were former cells for German WWII prisoners. It was a little spooky.
Click to expand...

Me and my Dad took photography lessons and learn how to develop black and white and color, it was always a great hobby and still is, now both me and my Dad only use digital, I couldn't see myself going back to film although film was a great experience and the quality of film is unique.TY for sharing the Speed Graflex story, was informative and humerous:)
 
Banjo said:
I know for a fact there are a lot of photographers who still use large format film. Even in the magazine and newspaper industry. However, digital format is pretty much the choice of many in the mainstream media industry. They rely on it since they need everything to be ready on the spot.

I use a digital camera, I love it. Better than spending money on film rolls over the long run.

Film is still superior to this day. The digital format is getting there though. Many movies are filmed digitally these days. The majority are still shot on film though. That's a good thing if you ask me. Especially when it comes to remastering movies in high resolution for the home video industry.

Regarding the forensics science... they are starting to use DSLR cameras more often these days. I'm pretty sure the admission rules on evidence varies by the location though. So it either could get accepted or rejected.
Click to expand...
You've got my solemn agreement with much of what you've said. Although with forensics I wasn't thinking much about the documentation and legal proceedings but more in terms of achievements that they do in film with darkroom manipulation.. like traditional dodging and burning techniques.. Although I feel that with all the programs these days it may not be necessary anymore. Hmmm.
 
The film camera's are still around. Especially at tourist towns or some where like niagra falls that have disposable camera's . The biggest concern though is where do you get the film developed? A lot of the usual places like drug stores stopped film development services and this will get harder to have done in the near future.
So I guess that unless you can develope your own film the digital camera will be the only one to opt for.
 
I find it hard to believe. I live in the heart of Kodak corporation. Actually I could see Kodak manufacturer from my living room window during winter time. Anyway the point is that I find hard to believe that majority of movie makers still using films. There are huge plant off route 104 that is dedicated for movie maker is GONE. I mean HUGE manufacture plant just for the filmmakers, they are gone and had imploded a year ago. Kodak spokeman had spoken, the history has changed.

Small time moviemaker, probably still use film but they are costlier than Digital in the long run.

The one that I see across from my living room is plants to make Kodachrome. They have shut down few months ago. They are turning these massive properties into "Eastman Business park" and they rented buildings and properties to various companies, including one that is medical Insurance company, and I think it is Careone, something like that.

Also, Kodak had downsized from peak of approximately 83,000 employees back in 1993 to under 4,000 employees right now and heard that another 800 that is just let go (Thats for Kodachrome plant).

DHB

Banjo said:
Film is still superior to this day. The digital format is getting there though. Many movies are filmed digitally these days. The majority are still shot on film though. That's a good thing if you ask me. Especially when it comes to remastering movies in high resolution for the home video industry.
Click to expand...
 
Right now for Kodak there is only one film process shop still available and it is located which I think in Kansas City, MO. I have no idea of other manufacturer as I don't have their information. I know Kodak because that is where I live, literally next to Kodak park.

DHB

DDU said:
The film camera's are still around. Especially at tourist towns or some where like niagra falls that have disposable camera's . The biggest concern though is where do you get the film developed? A lot of the usual places like drug stores stopped film development services and this will get harder to have done in the near future.
So I guess that unless you can develope your own film the digital camera will be the only one to opt for.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
I find it hard to believe. I live in the heart of Kodak corporation. Actually I could see Kodak manufacturer from my living room window during winter time. Anyway the point is that I find hard to believe that majority of movie makers still using films. There are huge plant off route 104 that is dedicated for movie maker is GONE. I mean HUGE manufacture plant just for the filmmakers, they are gone and had imploded a year ago. Kodak spokeman had spoken, the history has changed.

Small time moviemaker, probably still use film but they are costlier than Digital in the long run.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, the majority are still shot on film. But the number of movies being shot in digital is climbing rapidly.
 
Banjo said:
I know for a fact there are a lot of photographers who still use large format film. Even in the magazine and newspaper industry. However, digital format is pretty much the choice of many in the mainstream media industry. They rely on it since they need everything to be ready on the spot.

I use a digital camera, I love it. Better than spending money on film rolls over the long run.

Film is still superior to this day. The digital format is getting there though. Many movies are filmed digitally these days. The majority are still shot on film though. That's a good thing if you ask me. Especially when it comes to remastering movies in high resolution for the home video industry.

Regarding the forensics science... they are starting to use DSLR cameras more often these days. I'm pretty sure the admission rules on evidence varies by the location though. So it either could get accepted or rejected.
Click to expand...

At the Fbi they are using Film.
 
diehardbiker said:
I find it hard to believe. I live in the heart of Kodak corporation. Actually I could see Kodak manufacturer from my living room window during winter time. Anyway the point is that I find hard to believe that majority of movie makers still using films. There are huge plant off route 104 that is dedicated for movie maker is GONE. I mean HUGE manufacture plant just for the filmmakers, they are gone and had imploded a year ago. Kodak spokeman had spoken, the history has changed.

Small time moviemaker, probably still use film but they are costlier than Digital in the long run.

The one that I see across from my living room is plants to make Kodachrome. They have shut down few months ago. They are turning these massive properties into "Eastman Business park" and they rented buildings and properties to various companies, including one that is medical Insurance company, and I think it is Careone, something like that.

Also, Kodak had downsized from peak of approximately 83,000 employees back in 1993 to under 4,000 employees right now and heard that another 800 that is just let go (Thats for Kodachrome plant).

DHB
Click to expand...

actually - it's costlier if they used digital format because of the cost involved to needed to make it such as massive storage drives, servers, etc. Simply look at the cost of making Toy Story (100% digital) and then compare it to action movie done by film.

the major advertising firms still use film because the digital camera has its limitation when it comes to a much larger size like... billboards. But digital camera is SLOWLY getting there.
 
Jiro said:
actually - it's costlier if they used digital format because of the cost involved to needed to make it such as massive storage drives, servers, etc. Simply look at the cost of making Toy Story (100% digital) and then compare it to action movie done by film.

the major advertising firms still use film because the digital camera has its limitation when it comes to a much larger size like... billboards. But digital camera is SLOWLY getting there.
Click to expand...

The first Toy Story was made on a budget of $30 million. The second skyrocketed to around $92 million. The third one was around $200 million from what I know. Technology has advanced over the last fifteen years, although I do question their budgets because it is getting pretty crazy these days.

A factor could be the voice actors. Both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were paid $50,000 each for the first and got $5 million each for the second. According to IMDb, Tom Hanks received $15 million for the third. I didn't find anything for Tim Allen, but it's probably $15 million too as well.

So, $30 million for both actors combined is equal to the production budget for the first movie. That's eight times the budget of the original.

I wish we could get a breakdown of the budget for Toy Story 3.

Before the 1990s, $20 million was considered a big budget. Empire Strikes Back was made on a budget of $18 million. Return of the Jedi had a budget of $32 million. These were considered big projects. Now you can barely get a studio-produced movie with no special effects made at a budget of $30 million these days.

Back to the Future Part I was under $20 million while the other two parts were $40 million each. Today, they would make the same movies for $200 million each.

A lot has changed in the last 25 years.
 
I still have my Minolta 35mm SLR. I haven't used it for a while though.

I think that film will produce much better black & white images than digital.
 
I have a disposable camera with about 10 pictures left. I've had it for at least 5 years. Not sure what the other photos are...
 
Back
Top