hi Kev - my point is that digital is the next evolution of film, we wouldnt have got to digital without film being around.
i suppose its more evident in moving film. High quality film recording is much much better than low quality digital recording, but there is more opportunity for digital to improve endlessly, whereas some will argue that film has had its day.
it was only around 50 years ago that film photography became a household thing, now in a mere 10 years, digital as totally, totally taken over.
Thing is, how many horse drawn carts do you see on the road? very few i reckon, its a specialist thing (i know a fair few people with horsedrawns, but they are more the hippie traveller types than big road users.
i think films biggest downfall is that you will need a company to mass produce film, chemicals and paper for it to be viable to do it on any level
if the money isnt there (i.e the interested to do it on a broad scale) then less and less people are going to be prepared to base companies on it.
this is why i think it will make a comeback in a few years, eventually everyone will stop making stuff, demand willl rise among the purists and someone, somewhere will eventually start producing these things again.
i see digital as an evolution of film, not an opposing force and i think if it improves in its first 20 years, as much as film did in its first 100, then we wil find ourselves with remarkable digital equipment and not much use for film.
who knows where it will all be in 100 years, perhaps somewhere none of us dreamed off, but we have all embraced the digital bandwagon, and i am sure if something cooler comes along, we will be first in line to try it out.
be funny if there are digital purists out there then, bleating on about their forgotten art and how 'its never going to change ever' fact is, photography and its processes has been changing since it began. this is just another step forward of that, and nothing to be fighting about
Fi x