Sadly its been reported that
film has died today.
After many years of service
and use the death of film has
happened. Friends of film are
very upset over the untimely demise.
Family including brothers kodak
and Fuji are heartbroken.
A cousin, T-max has been reported
as saying; "I feel so useless"
Digi vs film is STILL an OPINION WAR. Hate to see it hashed and rehashed like the critique galleries. There is no finite truth in any of these arguments and there never will be.
"There are trivial truths, and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."
-- Neils Bohr
Concerning shooting with 4x5. That's certainly a high-end option and always has been. An artist here has a show of images from 8x10, all done as contact prints.
But the simple fact of life is that 35mm proliferated in publishing (where much of the money is) and, ultimately, in wedding candids because of its speed and intimacy. Digital is taking over that market and eclipsing some of the medium format uses.
Sure, there are digi backs for 4x5 cameras, but they cost a tremendous amount of money.
Ultimately, the camera choice has to do with practicality of use for a given purpose. And 4x5 simply isn't practical for a lot of shooting.
David, if you prefer to see it as not wanting to lug equipment, that's OK. But I challenge you to shoot a basketball game in 4x5 and have an image on the editor's desk within half an hour of the end of the game.
Fact is, the industry requires a lot of cameras these days. Back when I was shooting athletics, you shot only b/w, processed the film in a fast developer (like HC110) and printed your negatives wet, because you didn't have time to dry the film.
Today, I can get a crisp color image for the sports front from a guy who used a Canon digital, sometimes before he even gets back to the office. If he has a laptop, he can pick out a photo or two and ftp the stuff to us from the game. We have the photos before we have the story.
So, it's just a fact of life that the industry (and not just newspapers) has evolved to the point that it demands digital for certain things.
There simply isn't the time in a lot of situations to shoot the 4x5, process it, print it, scan it and present it for publication.
That's not to say that there's no place for larger formats. It's just that the place is limited, and has been for many years.
Besides deadline pressures, there are things like travel to consider. If you're flying, the airport screening does nothing to CF cards, while it will toast some film. At the very least, it's likely to change your contrast.
Sometimes, it's awfully awkward to carry enough 4x5 film to handle a wedding, especially at the reception.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. There are reasons for all the various formats. As long as there are people willing to lug 4x5's around, I hope there are companies willing to make film, etc., for the shooters.
Faith, the shoot-a-lot syndrome is pure journalism. Our mantra always was "film is cheap." (It's the paper for printing that's expensive.)
The first duty of a photo journalist is to get something usable. Then, it's to get something better. Then, it's to get something nobody else has. The reason is that something might happen to screw up any further shots, so you want the first frames to be publishable. Sometimes they're great, sometimes they aren't. But they're useful.
That mentality leads to shooting a lot. And it has carried over to digital. Ironically, I find our shooters at the paper do shoot less now than in yesteryear. It's because they "chimped" and saw that they had a decent digital shot, so they quit shooting.
When you're on deadline, digital can be wonderful.