Thank God (or the deity of your choice) we've cleared up that whole film/digital controversy -- I was beginning to think it might go on for an eternity. I hereby contend that Darjeeling tea is superior to all other tea varieties.

Randall Roberts, Carlsbad, USA / New Mexico

I dont know and I dont care!!! It is one of those hypothetical and useless questions...

Guillermo Labarca, Santiago, Chile

In his book, The Negative, Adams asserts that the future of photography will probably be in the electronic image...

Leon, Miami, USA

Yes, Ansel Adams would definitely have experimented with and used
digital. There was a documentary film made on him shortly before his
death. At the end of the film he said something to the effect that his
work was being archived at the University of Arizona and that it
would be there to be manipulated by future generations because the
technology was changing everything and opening up new
possibilities. He was far from a technophobe. He used whatever
medium gave him the results that he wanted.

danny, Detroit, US

Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?
He would embrace it with open arms! He was a master in the Darkroom More than likely he would have the best Mac
avavilable and be teaching Photoshop in seminars around the globe

Rob Gerity, Hainesville, New Jersey USA

"Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated."
Unless of course it's scanned! Honesty is more to do with integrity of the image maker, NOT the technology!

"My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph."
This of course is personal opinion but for me and many of my colleagues it's a ludicrous suggestion. An artist may use whatever means or techniques within a creative process. I started working fully digitally 5 years ago and it has served to aid what I wanted to portray through my imagery, not hinder it! We were always tied by apppalling constraints of exposure, latitude, ham-fisted filter systems and darkroom techniques to reduce grain and clumping. As primarily a landscape photo-artist I can get closer to the "truth" of what I experience than ever before, and that has to be a good thing?

Glyn Davies, Menai Bridge, Anglesey

For Anne: Well, your kids will trawl through the printed form of film displayed neatly in an album book, they will not trawl through hundreds of negatives stashed in a shoe box just like they won't your hard drive. So, it' s the same with digital, you want them to look at it, then just print them and add them to albums, just like you'd have to do with film. No inherent advange of film here.

Tuan, montreal, canada

I'll appologize in advance. I'm Sorry ladys and gentlemen. A new era has arrived. Digital has arrived and is taking over at a pace that the complacent can't handle. Mr. Wood sir: Digital is just as magic as film if you'll accept that. What do you think makes film richer? And how much more demeaning can you get, asserting that digital has gotten so good that you can't tell the difference in a "newspaper"? You're always welcome to view the 20x24's and larger in my studio. We're 100% digital - and I still love my RB67 too but it's history now. There's more incoming partner. What's this "stuff" about film being more honest than digital? Images have been manipulated and R/Td since Mathew Brady and the Civil War. Quit it will you? And, my goodness, I'll bet you a 8Gb CF Card Ansel Adams would have had a ball with a 32mb back on a matching Hassy. If Kodak isn't seen as the writing on the wall how the heck can I convince anyone.

Rex Moyer, Haymarket, VA

It's been about eight years since I turned on to digital and about five since I abandoned film altogether. I knew that film would go the way of the dinosaur immediately after I made my first prints with a computer. If anything, digital photography has greatly expanded my creative juices, and has eliminated the mess and waste associated with my darkroom.
Just as 19th Century artists lambasted early protographers for practicing what they would not consider a legitimate art form, so too do some film-based photographers put down those who have discovered the exciting world of digital photography.
Photo manipulation has been around since the beginning of the light-sensitive media, and will be around even when something else replaces digital.
Regarding Kodak's possible decision to free itself of film manufacture; in one way it's like saying that for Kodak not to sell film is like McDonald's not selling hamburgers, but maybe we can do well without either!

Marshall Rubin, Youngsville, USA/New York

I shot film for 20 years, bought a good digital camera, tried and tried to get shots as nice as film, then recently switched back to film (REALA, PROVIA etc.) simply because the results are just a lot nicer.
I still think Digital will soon surpass film and it has its advantages over film already in certain applications but it's speed is also it's weakness. Good pictures take time.
What bothers me the most is the claim that film cost money and digital is free. Was that memory card really free? And what is the depreciation rate of that digital camera? Digital is not free, it just isn't calculated per shot. Plus, now I am getting lots of free film from all my friends who are switching to digital.

Kyle Martens, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Call it what you will, but using a digital camera is not photography. Film photography is as much a process as it is a result -- and both are honest. You have to know photography or you will pay for your mistakes. Digital is all about results, irrespective of how you get there: profligate image taking, preview and delete, then save the lucky shot for Photoshop. I've used both formats, so I know. For 25 years I used one camera (Canon VT rangefinder ), one lens (35mm f/1.8), one film type (Kokachrome II) and only half the time had a lightmeter. No flash, no triopd, no Photoshop to clean up the mess. A roll might last 3 months as I strove to make each shot a "keeper." When I went digital (briefly) I'd shoot 200 images over a three day vacation and later delete three-quarters of them. When the digital thrill died and I went back to film, I found I was a terrible photographer. And now, slowly, with film, I'm learning all over again what it means to take a photograph.

Michael Klewin, Lawrenceville, New Jersey USA

“We will do whatever is good for this company and whatever is good for shareholders,” Mr Perez said.

... and the customer is a pain in the neck?

Christer Almqvist, Hamburg, Germany

For me the reason to use film has to do with how the camera operates. I have yet to find a digital camera where manual operation is not an after thought. (The Leica M8 and Epson RD-1 rangefinder cameras are manual digital cameras, however for me each has serious issues and an absurd price.) I do not enjoy using a camera whose engineers and marketing departments never intended to be used as a manual camera. In fact, trying to anticipate how a camera's software algorithms will decide to record my subject(s) of interest actually interferes with the process of creating a photograph.

Of course, auto-focus and auto-exposure have their place. But manual photography is important to me because it is simple while giving the photographer full control. I enjoy thinking about how to best create a photograph that will generate the impact and emotion I wish to communicate.

When, and if, DSLR market growth flattens, I hope some vendor will offer a reasonably priced camera with a high-quality optical finder and designed such that manual focus and manual exposure is straightforward. Until then I will use film.

ps I also love TriX

willioe, St. Louis, MO

Hmmm...I dont see my first post, so here I go again:

I happen to agree with Graham as well. Don't get me wrong, I shoot over 100,000 digital frames a year, but I still life the way film looks and works better. The day when we will not be able to use Kodachrome is quickly approaching. In my opinion, nothing can touch it, not even digital. Hence my project, Kodachromeproject dot com.

Kodachrome Project, Aspen, CO

Has anyone actually compared a B&W shot taken from a digital SLR and film? Film wins hands down. Digital produces flat b&w's and has no life in the shots.

Also, you don't get that lovely grain in digital

Robert, Brisbane,

Hurray for digital. No more fear about getting the shot perfect - you can retake until you do. It has encouraged a great deal more spontaneity in my photography, as I'm not worried about wasting film or running out... Now that the quality for consumers is no longer a detriment to the finished result, I think digital really is the way to go.

To Elias, above, if Mozart were still alive today, would he stick to the harpsichord? Or would he experiment on what was available? He pioneered new instruments back then. Digital does not take away from the art - it creates more flexilbility. Assuming someone is a talented artist, they can only benefit from technology.

Joshua, Long Beach Island, NJ

I hear WWAAD all the time on line, If you study Adams, then you know he was always in the cutting edge, even a film shoot in the 1970's about him he talked about the coming of Digital photos. but he used different words amd was very much looking forward to it, yes he would be using a dig. camera and still getting great photos, and pushing the everyone to do a better job.

Michael Berman, Tucson, AZ, USA

" Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital ? "
The answer is YES absluteley. Just for the record I do not
too many limitations!

Manfred Feuser, Lilydale, Australia

Very briefly:
film, film, film, no digital, no digital no digital!!!
:)))

Adam Pinter, Oakland, USA

I developed my first film aged 12 some 58 years ago. Now with arthritis I am too crippled up to take more pictures. However I have thousands of good slides and negatives. And lots of good equipment all in mint condition. Mostly I miss the wonderful smells!

DAVID VINTER, LOUTH, LINCS., UK

As a retired photographer I agree with you. It came on way too fast and disrupted the photography world.
My biggest concern is the photo's for police & the courts should only digital photographs be used for evidence.

Larry Miller, Parkersburg, WV,

There are digital art prints, and there are traditional art prints made using analog methods. We have two mediums now. One is a tech world, the other an old fashioned roll your sleeves up, get your hands dirty, method. While some like computers and playing in that rhelm, I prefer the darkroom and the magic it holds. I also find I can tell the difference between digital and analog easily. One just doesn't have the depth. Again I will go for the depth of a picture over digital image. I'm also cheap. I can't justify the endless costs of upgrading my equipment all the time. I also can't afford to keep buying the computer photo paper that is more expensive than traditional papers. I realy find the inks for digital much more expensive than the chemicals used in the darkroo,. Lastly what chemicals I use, make great fertilizers for a lawn. How many computer parts can break down into an eco freindly solution like that? In the end, I will go with bio friendly cost effective magically luddite tradtional film based photography. My choice!

Agnes Weessies, Hurricane, UT

Ansel Adams used to say "The negative is the score and the print is the performance." I think he would have been one of the earliest and most enthusiastic proponents of digital photography. It would have been fantastic to learn digital photography from him! The books would have been best sellers.

Jim Maurer, San Jose, CA, USA

Bruce, you're on the right track. The big lie from corporations is once again thrown into the drivel from the CEO -- that of increasing stockholder value. If, God forbid, these morons would concentrate on producing goods and services that people want at a reasonable cost, the @#$*ing stock price will take care of itself.

There is no such thing as a stockholder these days. There are only stock speculators and they don't give a rip about the longevity of a given company. The only thing on their minds is buying a stock for x value and selling for something greater than x. If selling off part of the company, downsizing, or whatever drives up the stock price they're happy. What is left in the ashes is of no concern to them.

I worked for Kodak for 27 years and witnessed first hand the change from adding value to the company to adding value to the price of the stock.

Richard, Greeley, Colorado

Digital photography sensors are not made larger than about 6 x 6 cm, or 2 ¼”, and even those are very expensive - about US$25,000 each and requiring further computer processing support equipment. This means that for economic reasons, large format photography, 4”x5", certainly 8”x10" and larger, cannot be done in digital.

Yet, after enlargement, large format provides a result that suffers far less from the effects of optical path distortions (OPD) that are inherent in all lenses. These OPD exist because visible light is a spectrum of wavelengths, and no lens can be perfect at all colors (wavelengths) because of the physics of diffraction, nor will technical advances change the physics of light. Large format negatives require moderate or no enlargement, while even 6 x 6 cm requires significant enlargement of the image, thus also amplifying the OPD. This becomes visible - just look at the clarity of large format BW images in a gallery.

Dan Bagnell, Marina del Rey, California

Would hate to see it. I love shooting Tri-X. No other black & white film has its "look." Digital can't match it.

Barry Chafin, Louisville, Kentucky/ USA

I agree with you Graham, film is just magic.

As a professional, I shoot over 100,000 digital images per year. But I also shoot film. It just looks different and does so right out of the camera. I am not sure what is to become of the color film industry, but the black and white one will survive and then some. But the day when we might not be able to shoot Kodachrome is nearing...and digital simply can not touch that. Hence, my project:

http://www.Kodachromeproject.com

Kodachrome Project, Aspen, CO

I retired from photography after nearly a 40-year magical career. I retired because my firm closed down its photo lab, a place that I simply loved & spent hours developing many award-winning photos. I realize the importance of digital photography in the fast-paced world we live in today. I covered the Vietnam conflict, the Gulf War, tensions in the Holy Land, Kurdistan, Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. I've seen the advantages of digital. However, that doesn't mean that I enjoy it. Thus, I've coined the phrase, Fast Food of Photography. To me it has not only cheapened a wonderful art, it has created a lot of 'untruthful' images that, although there are ethics in place, too many so-called photograpers do not follow them. It is sad that Kodak is contemplating pulling out of the film industry. Due to digital, I feel that tons of history are simply being deleted from the archives.

Ken George, University Place, US/Washington

Not a very clever thing to say about Ansell Adams using digital. If Adams was so stuck in the past and not be creative as Mr Wood, then Ansell Adams would not have used a camera, but oil on canvas or perhaps chisel on a rock wall.

Deepak, Wayland, USA

Aside from the often superior artistic qualities of traditional film there is phot
the critical question of credibility. Personally I would be loathe to be-
lieve any photographic information based on a digital image. Without
a negative to scrutinize, we could easily have George W French-kissing
Ossama - and who's to say that would be far removed from reality?

Joseph Finch , Los Angeles, CA

I am always amazed by those that are reluctant or unable to move forward in life along with technolgy changes. Sure, the digital revolution in photography has been disruptive, but it has been enabling as well. Ansel Adams would have recognized two things about digital photography were he still alive today: 1) the dynamic range of digital is significantly greater than the best transparency films enabling the capture of a wider range of tones in any given scene and 2) moving from the darkroom with all its chemical and physical constraints to the computer for print production not only provides a more direct route to the final image, but many opportunities to alter the image in ways that traditional dodging/burning, development, toning, and use of filters or paper grades are unable to achieve.

While large format photography can still produce images that are more detailed than the largest digital arrays that are commercially available, advances in technology will soon level the playing field and do so in a physical format that does not require the photographer to drag around a 8x10 view size camera. Indeed, cameras such as Canon's 16 Mpixel EOS Mark II, and Hasselblad's recently introduced H3D series with its up to 39 Mpixel images already capture more detail than film for a given format size and offer photographers a whole host of options not only for capture, but for manipulating and transmitting their images in ways that are impossible for film.

Robert Newman, Dallas, Texas

One of the things that set Ansel Adams apart was his ability to previsualise the finished image at the point of exposure. This would of course be rendered obsolet by digital. I'm sure that he would embrace any new media with the enthusiasm he had for large format and Polaroid.

Brian Warner, Woking, UK

A sad moment came on Friday when I took by digital camera and left my film camera at home when I went to take pictures at a sports practice.

The final media is to see whether the teens are positioning themselves correctly and not "art" by any sense of the imagination. I was able to shoot 100 pictures for the cost of burning a CD. Looking at the pictures -- when Spring comes and I'm taking pictures at games, I'm packing my film camera. The beauty of the colors just can't match what I can achieve with film.

Instancy of the moment vs. beauty of the moment is a line that I have to look at with the end users in mind and see if the fact that I care is enough to trump lower cost and faster production.

Will a person in a purely digitial environment choose not to catch the picture of a tear running down the face of a pitcher who just lost the game because of the intrusion into a child's life, or will mass pixels replace the heart of the photographer?

Dave Rogers, Aurora, IL

My issue with digital is longevity. I've got B&W snaps from my mother's Brownie still - will my kids trawl through my hard drive(s) when I'm gone, will the CD be readable in 10 - 20 - 50 years? I'm afraid a generation of memories will be lost unless we make a point of taking hard-copy NOW.

Anne Crowter, Milton Keynes, Bucks

Ansel Adams would still use film... you're telling me Mozart would be smashing guitars if he were born today? There's a disposition that goes with each art and craft that is not transferable. The luminaries of every field were the right person in the right place at the right time. As for oil paints - that's a very good point: everybody thought photography would kill painting...
Hey cheer up all: there's still Ilford. If you really care about film, you have another 5 years or more to make a statement. Buy from the suppliers that show a commitment to it, use it, show it, take pains not to pollute with it, and let Kodak fade into the annals of history. Maybe somebody with vision will buy it, and build to a manageable scale, and keep Tri-X alive.

Elias Roustom, Wareham, USA

Kodak should run for the door, and try to sell it at 6 times cash flow before cash flow dosappears.

India with new technology willnot be far behind in shifting toward digital.

Silver is over valued, and is only keeping its value for there are new etf's which tie gold and silver together. If more people start just investing in Gold etf's silver would be around $ 4.00 , not $ 13.50

Ralph Petrillo, mamaroneck, usa,ny

I entirely agree with Graham's point. I have resisted moving to digital because where is the creativity in it? and seeing the result immediately takes all the excitement out of the process. Whilst I was travelling I spent hours in the company of people who spent their evenings deleting digital pictures - if you use film you're far more likely to try to get it right first time round, and you get to do more interesting things with your evenings!

Rosie Blackburn, Kingston, England

"Film has a lasting endurance. It is the true medium for photographers."

In that case, sir, I have no wish of being a photographer anymore.

"Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. Ansel Adams loved to experiment, and to use different mediums for his art, and he paid close attention to the evolution and revolutions of photographic technology and media.

What is it with today's film technology that makes it more of a "true medium" for photographers than the glass plates used before, or daguerrotypes?

No, your views have nothing to do with photography. They have something to do with loving the near past that you grew up with, rather than the past of your parents, or the future of your children. Your children will be using electronic cameras, it's about time to get used to it, even though the technology is only in its infancy.

Jan Ingvoldstad, Oslo, Norway

in a way, it might be good for Kodak to throw in the towel now and leave the film field to others who are not carrying the huge baggage of infrastructure geared to larger sales -- Ilford, for example, can only profit from Kodak quitting, and other smaller European and British makers of photo products

charles trentelman, Ogden, Utah, USA

This quote says it all:
“We will do whatever is good for this company and whatever is good for shareholders,” Mr Perez said. "
However Kodak doesn't seem to know what is good for the company.

Roderick, Broomfield, CO

Yes, Ansel Adams more than once said that he thought digital photography would expand the horizons of photography. He expressed his wish to give it a try.

Eric Welch, Carlsbad, CA

I agree ans support Graham's point of view. The film is a real magic thing - can you hold a digit in your hand? :) I use film cameras and digital cameras, but film is a film. Using film camera you have another feelings, than using DSLR...
So, don't say goodbye to film - it is still alive!

Igor Pourmel, Moscow, Russia

Of course Ansal Adams would have used digital!

He was closely involved with the development of the polaroid process and enjoyed that.
Film is romantic and is a proven medium. Digital requires more discipline on the part of the photographer. He must think more about the image he is making and how he will print it. Its a new learning curve for all of us luddites but its certainly has its creative advantages too. Learning how to slow down is the new skill not worrying about going too fast!

Conor, London, UK

It is simple as mixing water and oil but here it is commerce and art. In the final analysis, a firm such as Eastman Kodak, cannot continue to underwrite the traditional medium of photography as an art form. They must act in the interest of their stock holders and engage in sound commerce. The deliberateness of composition and execution of the traditional photographic print will succumb to the digital maniacs and satisfy the need for the instantaneous. I used to make gum-bichromates that would take nearly a week from start to finish--a lot longer than the now "snap and observe and manipulate". And, I suspect that Ilford and Fuji will follow suit too. I am almost ashamed to identify current image making as photography and maybe call it "digitography".

David, Kansas City, United States/Missouri

Ansel Adams was not a painter (artist) - the dominant medium used for capturing scenic images not long before he began his work. He was a photographer and used the most modern medium of his time, the camera. Had he come of age in the digital age, I believe he would have used digital. I am 63 and when I see statements like this I see them as cop out by those who is stuck in their chosen medium and afraid of change. They may be correct about themselves - their talent may not be able to transition with progress - but they cheapen themselves by dragging i a master to justify their own inability to evolve. Just a thought.

Allen D, San Jose , Costa Rica

There is no medium, none, that equals Kodachrome with classic Kodak processing. It has a 200-year dark storage life, incredible grain, absolutely accurate color. Digital is fine, but it will never equal the Kodachrome of 20 years ago. Digital can photograph a field of grass, and get green; Kodachrome will capture every shade of green within that field.

But sad to say, Kodak is going to abandon it. And, like good San Francisco sourdough bread, or Roman concrete, it will be something future folks will never stop lamenting.

On the other hand, I think that film photography will survive, in the same way painting does -- as a unique art form, richer than digital photography.

Donald Scott, Arroyo Grande, California/USA

I suppose there were many who defiantly stood beside black and white film as the only "true" artistic medium for stills when color emerged. Digital can already exceed the latitude and "warmth" of film. You just need the right equipment and know how to use it. These arguments are academic and not real-world. I've loved film, and now I love digital. In another ten or twenty years, there might be something else to love even more. Will I resist for the sake of comfort and tradition, or will I seek to maximize my artistic ability utilizing the tools available to me?

Jody Eldred, Marina Del Rey, CA

Film is still artistic medium but not journalist medium anymore. Dut it's not a problem - there always will be a market for artists who use this technology. Don't worry: film is forever, but its role could be different.

Dmitry, St.Petersburg, Russia

I switched from Kodak film to Fujichrome more than ten years ago for technical reasons, not for lack of availability. As long as Fuji is producing film and as long as there are labs here in the US to process it, I will continue to use it.

Len Kratz, Prescott Valley, AZ, USA

"Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated."
Unless of course it's scanned! Honesty is more to do with integrity of the image maker, NOT the technology!

"My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph."
This of course is personal opinion but for me and many of my colleagues it's a ludicrous suggestion. An artist may use whatever means or techniques within a creative process. I started working fully digitally 5 years ago and it has served to aid what I wanted to portray through my imagery, not hinder it! We were always tied by apppalling constraints of exposure, latitude, ham-fisted filter systems and darkroom techniques to reduce grain and clumping. As primarily a landscape photo-artist I can get closer to the "truth" of what I experience than ever before, and that has to be a good thing?

Glyn Davies, Menai Bridge, Anglesey

Everything advances, some changes are harder to digest than others. The 'magic' of developing the photographs by yourself in the lab might be gone but it will certainly be replaced by more precise technology. Whether precision is what we want is another question... sometimes the 'imperfections' and grain effect of the pictures taken by Avedon, Arbus, Cartier-Bresson and so many others, are part of what makes their pictures unique and mysterious...

Urs, Zurich,

I´m with Graham here, film is the only true artistic medium for photographers, sure digital is becoming popular but in the end it´s just a little computer. Living in rural Spain I´m alreday finding it hard to source film based materials but they´ll always be a market for traditional material - in fact new products are coming on line on a regualr basis from the Eastern block

Andy Buchanan, Ronda, Andalucia

If you look at prints that Ansell Adams made from the same negative 20 years apart you will see that he played "tricks" in the darkroom. I am certain that if we were "snapping" away today he would use the best that modern technology has to offer - he would still be a world class photographer - he had artistic skill, a great eye and an even greater passion. It is what goes on in the photographers head that enables him to produce great photos. Even with the best equipment that the world has to offer I fear that my attempts would still be pitiful!

Barry mellish, Bromley, England

Just more desecration of the life and passion of George Eastman.
Kodak without film is a complete also-ran.
Reminds me of the long-term dissection and decay of Kodak's neighbor, Xerox.

The corporate goons don't care about product, reputation, or tradition, just
the next quarter's cooked-up results, dolled-up to be sure they reap enjoyable bonuses before these ticks and fleas find a new dog's fur to hide in.

Bruce Hawkins, Webster, New York

it's sad, they killed off their best film first, kodachromes and technical pan. exactly the ones that could keep the quality advantage of film much longer. film has not been overtaken-it was murdered. agfa is gone as well, will fuji hold out?

Nikola, Tel Aviv,

Ansell Adams appears to have enjoyed modifying photos and trying to get all he could out of a picture. Digital has made it easy for those of us who enjoy trying to get all we can out of a photo...take the picture, put it on the computer and work with it. Most of our results will be far less than Mr Adams but I have seen many that were far better. Would he have used digital? Well he certainly did'nt seem to shy away from any modification technique to get the result he wanted. He was popular because other people also liked his results.

mike conyers, Lansing, MI

Why not use oil paint, it's even better.

Mike Fox, London, UK

The late Lord Lichfield changed over to digital and he was very pleased with his results, in addition I remember he said that he had saved thousands which would otherwise have been spent on film.
I am now on my third digital camera; digital photography is brilliant, I just take out the memory card, plug it into the front of the computer and copy the images across and they can be printed or emailed immediately.

Michael Cawood, Wrexham, Wales, UK