Yes, that many. The pros have swung to digital faster than you can say, "What
happened to film?" When your livelihood depends on being able to produce great
photographs with minimal expense and in the lest amount of time, you go for the
best solution. But I understand where your teacher is coming from. Film is a
wonderful mystery. You soak this piece of acetate in chemicals and an image
forms. Great photographers have worked for a century in this traditional way,
and there are many weonderful recipes in the expert film shooters repertoire. I
think everyone should have a chance to shoot film and work in the traditional
darkroom. But if one is serious about a career in photography, one should
quickly turn to digital and learn to work in the digital darkroom.
On another note, I don't think you should necessarily assume that the bay
area is progressive. It's PC. That's different. Film is PC, because it's
artsy-fartsy, and it has a history that ties it directly to an artisan
mystique. It's cool. Digital is all about commerce and getting the job done.
It's where the rest of the world is going. It's not for those who feel they
must march to that different drummer.
Speaking of the bay area, I got a kick out of your "420" mention. I was
married to MJ for at least 20 years, but it was just the other day that I
learned what 420 means. That's a hip, PC term. I'm just an old codger who's
been there and done that. That applies to photography as well.
Paul
> That many?
>
> That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
> think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
> in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
> "rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital photographer. Don't get
> me wrong I do want to learn film, but apres school? I'm going to let
> the lab do the developing...If I could? I'd probably shoot digital
> almost exclusively...I know a buddy who works at a lab in Emeryville
> seems to think film is being overshadowed by CD's and memory cards but
> I'm wondering just what the % really is....
>
> Me, I honestly think we need BOTH, but that LG and stores like it need
> to get more into digital than they are. I want more info, more tech
> stuff, and I'm just not finding it as easily as I'd like...Too many
> folks hell bent on keeping film as the only "true" artistic medium
> around here...LOL
>
> I don't see why we can't ALL have fun with BOTH, but then again I am a
> liberal semi-hippie pacifist...That's why I moved here after
> all...Peace marches, genuine diversity, veggie co-ops, stunning
> scenery and all that jazz....
>
> I never expected to find myself in a sea of anti-digital bigotry...
>
> Not HERE...
>
> This is dot.com land after all, the place where the internet was
> swaddled, where they still openly worship the Macintosh, where "420"
> apparently isn't an area code, and where stirring a cup of coffee
> ranks as an Olympic-worthy sport...
>
> ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:34:45 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >The phantom queen said,
> > >>Film sales are steady
> > >> among serious hobbyists and pros,...
> > >
> > >No way. I look at pro portfolios on a regular basis. I would guess that
> > >90%
> are shooting digital exclusively. Serious hobbyists are going digital at a
> very
> rapid pace. That's just reality.
> >
> > Yep. Film users for the most part now consist of students taking
> > photography courses, mommies with new babies and people who buy a
> > throw-away single-use camera every once in a while. The odd hobbyist and
> > pro who shoots a little film show up once in a while, but they're a
> > *very* small minority. Less than 5% would be my estimate of what we see.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Roberts
> > Photography and writing
> > www.robertstech.com
> >
> >
>
