Feeb,
You seem to be putting an opinion forward, then stating it as "fact", for instance, stating that "film photography will die out", "film photography will become obsolete", etc. Are you Mystic Meg? Can you tell the future? Good grief.
To be frank, I think the only person on here having a hissy fit is you, everyone else seems to be being very patient with you. In the face of people disagreeing with you, you just leap to the defensive claiming you're being attacked. You're not. Please show the respect you're asking us to show you. There are people on here who were probably taking pictures 30 years before you were born, and believe it or not, despite your few months at college, they know more than you!
When I claimed that film already was making a revival, your proof that I must be wrong was that your college darkrooms weren't being used very much. Well, that proves nothing except that your college doesn't require students to use them much, does it?
I have 5 friends who enjoy photography, and they all use film. We have little pocket digital things for snapping stuff for the internet, but in my experience, when hobby toggers want to take their pictures, they still prefer film, and I think they always will. It's nothing to do with your argument about quality and how long it'll take for digital to get better than film, you're missing the point; it's about the organic, tactile,
'real' nature of film - being able to develop it yourself, see it, touch it, being responsible for its creation. It's about
not sitting in front of a computer tapping away on photoshop, it's about being an artist and not a computer operator.
I don't care how good digital gets, it will never give me the feeling of satisfaction I get when I open the dev tank and see a set of perfect negs, and I'm not alone.
Can't you understand? There are lots of people who simply DON'T LIKE DIGITAL! I think that film will continue to be made for them.
Look at art - people were painting in oils hundreds of yrs ago, and look - they still are, despite how old fahioned it is. And who is the better craftsman, who is the
artist- someone who creates an image on photoshop, or someone who stands there with a palette, oils and a brush? I know which I'd have on my wall, thank you.
Take a look at my car. I could have a modern, quiet, smooth economical one, nice and ordinary, plain, just like everyone else's. Instead I choose to drive a '67 beetle. It smells, it's noisy, it's awfully slow, ice forms
inside the windows
lol
and it handles like the tyres are full of porridge. But I, and plenty people like me
love it. People in the street stop me to talk about it - they want one. It has character, soul, I've been under it and around it and restored it myself, been covered in oil and rust and crap. I do it myself - hands on - I don't just plug it into a laptop and let some bloody software restore some bloody factory settings. It's more
real somehow. And what's more there's a MASSSIVE classic car industry supported by rows of magazines supporting it for people like me. People making spares for it years and years after VW stopped making them itself, ensuring that cars like it will be on the road for a LONG TIME, no matter how old fashioned they are. Cameras are very similar. Film may be slower, clunkier, more old fashioned, and young people like you just can't seem to understand why it's still in use, but there's a dimension to film that people love, that digital can never provide, and that you, due to your lack of experience, don't understand.
Kodak is still developing new films for market,and Ilford and Fuji are constantly carrying out R&D on film too. There's a reason for that.
(Aaaaaannnd breeeeaathe!)