Film cameras have been a revolution unlike anything. It took years for it to be taken as something of an art as supposed to it being a technology that was supposed to stifle real art.



But as the monopoly of film cameras drew to a close there is a choice that present visual artists have to make. Are they willing to keep the old system and ignore the new or are they willing to risk compromise and use both.

There are so many who have stuck to what they know and love. They continue to speak of the longetivity of the film-based cameras that have given them so many great photographs. But with the discontinuation of production of parts and closing of repairs of these equipment, what would happen to the longetivity that they speak off?

Companies who created and patented these cameras are now pushing the sale of their new equipment. They are willing to forego the loyalty of both amateur and professional photographers who are wondering whether or not what they have would be useful for them in the future.

In the case of film-based cameras, it is still very much reliable to those whose knowledge of it is extensive. But for the newbies, digital versions of these SLR are the ones that are available for them to buy and learn how to use.

Film of course cost money and processing them have become a problem. Most printer shops are no longer catering to the film based processors. They digitize the film and then print them. This clouds and perhaps compromises the quality that was caught on film. Slowly but surely, the industry that once considered film as a major source of their profit has given it up to cameras that are more compact but altogether not as resilient as the older camera models.

Photography classes now have to give way to teaching digital photography simply because only serious hobbist now use film (and of course those whose generation were within the fame of film cameras). The quality of the cameras that were made them are relatively higher than the ones they have today. And the manufacturing of more compact cameras seem like a breeze and a great innovation but when one looks closely, the shell life of these equipment can be as easily compromised because of their size. One wrong move and the camera can be broken or shattered. The range of these cameras is also limited and the extensions are more expensive than they let on. So really, can they be any worse than choosing what you shoot to save film?

As the price and availability of film rise, there would be a lot of people who would be rejecting the notion of shelling out money to take a few pictures. But if you can see the picture fade well on your wall rather than be forgotten in a file folder somewhere in your computer, would'nt that be worth it?