lordjedi said:C3PX said:If the use of film were to come to an end, it would be the loss of an art form.
I kind of see it the opposite way. Digital will get cheaper and cheaper while film will just get more expensive. So fewer people might end up using film, but it'll still be there as an art form.
Similarly, with digital photography you no longer have to worry about having enough film to get that "killer shot". As long as you have enough space on the memory card, you can take pictures to your hearts content. When you get home to your "digital darkroom" you can then pick out that one great shot out of the hundreds of photos you took. Maybe you didn't get the ISO right or maybe the exposure time was to long on one shot. As long as it was right on the one shot out of 20, then you still got your shot. And of course it's also possible to "make" that one great shot if one photo is close but not quite right. The difference is that instead of it costing you 80% of a roll of film (assuming 24 frames and math I don't feel like doing) it didn't cost you anything for the digital shot.
Of course, there are still people who would prefer to wait and try to get that perfect shot. To them I say good luck. It'll be a little more expensive for them, but if they enjoy it, then so be it.
In photoshop there is an acrylic paintbrush option. It looks the same as a real acrylic brush stroke, you can edit the parameters including strength and brush coarseness, and you have much more precise color mixing options. You can erase and re-paint at the stroke of a mouse click and more importantly you don't have to buy acrylic paints, which are expensive, spend time mixing palettes, use easels and canvases which are bulky, space consuming and cost money, and you dont have to buy fancy brushes with specially made hairs. Plus you have digital filters and plug-ins and the ability to have unlimited image manipulation in the digital realm.
But would you want all fine art made in photoshop?
Film is the exact same. Anyone who tries to argue differently either doesn't actually understand the art of photography or doesn't care in the first place. To those people, digital is an efficient trade off in speed and quality, but for people that care about the art its not a replacement. Audiophiles listen to vinyl records, cinematographers shoot n 35mm film, photographers use chemical emulsions in whatever format and painters use oil or water based pigments on a physical surface. Digital emulation is not a replacement for any of the above, not yet and not ever.