Digital vs Film = Steroids vs Natural...

08/06/2004 12:46:31 PM · #1

First of all, I LOVE the images that I first saw on your weekly contests. Awesome stuff, I assume it's been digitally enhanced???

No matter, they are still awesome images. If I were voting I wouldn't know which one to vote for as they all are so different yet visually interesting to look at.

In the world of tennis, some players have "enhanced" their capabilities via steroids, some have not. Sometimes it's neat to see an all too powerful serve that cannot be returned, sometimes it's fun to just watch a great serve and volley at slower than speed of light velocity.

I would think the same could be true of this website.

Why not have a small section devoted to people that shoot film and don't in anyway manipulate the image beyond the basics of hue, brightness, set-up and chroma intensity?

We live in a world of Digital Steroids and Analog past, why try and force the idea that one must have dominion over the other?

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

08/06/2004 12:57:39 PM · #2

Well this is DPC (Digital Photography Challenge). I'm sure you can find a film version somewhere else.

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

08/06/2004 01:12:28 PM · #3

We are trying to make visually interesting images (with some restrictions though) not documentary.

In the open challenges there are only basic editing alowed so there is nothing there that couldnÂ´t be done on film. As a matter of a fact you could do much more editing on film.

My conclution: Comparing film photography and digital photography made here to Natural vs. Steroids seems pretty naive.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/06/2004 01:26:28 PM · #4

Umm, I see your point, but I can't agree. By equating digital photography with athletic performance achieved with steroids and film to athletic performance without, you have implied that film is soemhow "natural" and digital is not. Digital is just another means to creating an image, just as film photography, painting and drawing are.

You can apply the same argument to film and drawing, with film as the "steroid" version and drawing as natural.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/06/2004 02:10:37 PM · #5

I probably see about 5 pictures a year that haven't been digitally enhanced to one degree or another.

Almost all film is digital at one point or another these days too.

E.g., any print you get from walmart is digital, no matter what you give them - film or CF card.

08/06/2004 04:34:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by garlic:

We are trying to make visually interesting images (with some restrictions though) not documentary.

In the open challenges there are only basic editing alowed so there is nothing there that couldnÂ´t be done on film. As a matter of a fact you could do much more editing on film.

My conclusion: Comparing film photography and digital photography made here to Natural vs. Steroids seems pretty naive.

You could do more editing on film, huh? I definitely don't agree or understand. Nothing naive about comparing the two, one is "enhanced", one is not. film is shot, then developed, then printed. Yeah I know, the picture can be dodged or whatever, but compared to using digital programs, are you going to say that film is more flexible than digital, because that is what it sounds you are implying.

08/06/2004 04:35:25 PM · #7

Originally posted by Gordon:

Then why exlude film at all?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

08/06/2004 04:37:43 PM · #8

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Interesting analogy about film and drawing. But digital's selling point is the instancy and the amazing programs offered in post, yet some of your contests appear to try and level the playing field so it's not just about who can do the most manipulation. If that is a correct premise, then film contests would be a logical extension for this website.

Message edited by author 2004-08-06 16:38:24.

Pedro

Nikon D200

08/06/2004 05:06:00 PM · #9

Gordon's point was that most of the photographs that started as film (or slide) end up getting scanned and edited in Photoshop anyway before printing.

and don't fool yourself into thinking that dodging and burning is all you can do to film...

These were originally shot on film and scanned...

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

08/06/2004 05:38:22 PM · #10

The short answer to why not include film photograpy on this site is because the creators of this site (Drew and Langdon) wanted it to only be a digital photography site. There are also probably many technical reasons why it is digital only, one reason being that it is probably much easier to reasonably authenticate a shot using the original camera file in addition to it's EXIF data. I think it would be unreasonable and awkward to try to verify a film file by requesting that the user send in the original negative. The whole slowness of getting the film processed, edited and then posted to the site would be a big problem in the current time frames of the challenges. Film would simply be a major hassle on a lot of different fronts to deal with on this site.

Digital photography is no less real or natural than film photography, period. This is such a silly topic anymore that I hesitate to even respond. Both formats are created by controlling the way light hits the surface of a light sensitive device (film, ccd, cmos or other) and each format can be heavily edited, enhanced, or altered. The ease and speed by which this can be accomplished, which is in favor of digital, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. We are simply seeing a lot more images anymore that are digital becuse of it's convenience and popularity and so, logically, we are going to also see a lot more poorly edited digital images. This is what is natural with the progression of this medium but there is nothing un-natural about the format itself.

T

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

08/06/2004 05:51:41 PM · #11

Here's a suggestion Alexx. Why don't you go out and pick up a digital camera. You can get one at just about any price point and take it with you while you are shooting film. Then take some pics for the challenges on both formats and enter the digital ones. You will still have the high quality from the film but you will also have digital shots for the challenges. This way you won't be completely assimilated into a digital shooter but you can still enjoy this site and compete with your photos which we would love to see. What do you think?

T

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/06/2004 07:11:56 PM · #12

Since steroids are banned, and digital cameras are perfectly legal, maybe you should think a little harder at your next analogy. Next time try Album - CD, VHS - DVD, Horse and buggy - car, cans & string - cell phone...

Message edited by ClubJuggle - See note below.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

08/06/2004 07:33:49 PM · #13

Name-calling is not appropriate. Accordingly several posts have been hidden and one has been edited.

Feel free to continue this discussion but if the personal attacks and name-calling continue this thread will be locked.

-Terry

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/06/2004 07:41:15 PM · #14

Is calling someone a film user is an insult?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/06/2004 08:38:52 PM · #15

Originally posted by Alexx:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Umm, I see your point, but I can't agree. By equating digital photography with athletic performance achieved with steroids and film to athletic performance without, you have implied that film is soemhow "natural" and digital is not. Digital is just another means to creating an image, just as film photography, painting and drawing are.

You can apply the same argument to film and drawing, with film as the "steroid" version and drawing as natural.

Interesting analogy about film and drawing. But digital's selling point is the instancy and the amazing programs offered in post, yet some of your contests appear to try and level the playing field so it's not just about who can do the most manipulation. If that is a correct premise, then film contests would be a logical extension for this website.

Well, many similar arguments about emulsion based photography vs. painting were made when Dageurrotypes and other easily produced photography materials became readily accessible. It's just a case of history repeating itself.

I don't want to discourage your participation here, I think you are definitely bringing up some interesting points, but this site is about digital photography. There are plenty of other sites that are open to film based photography as well. Probably far more than those that are dedicated to digital alone.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/06/2004 08:44:16 PM · #16

Why you ...

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Message edited by author 2004-08-06 20:45:02.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

08/06/2004 08:55:49 PM · #17

Originally posted by louddog:

Is calling someone a film user is an insult?

No, it isn't. None of the posts I deleted referred to being a "film user."

I deleted two posts that were nothing but name-calling and edited out a portion of yours that was clearly in reply to that name-calling.

-Terry

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/06/2004 09:00:55 PM · #18

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by louddog:
Is calling someone a film user is an insult?

No, it isn't. None of the posts I deleted referred to being a "film user."

I deleted two posts that were nothing but name-calling and edited out a portion of yours that was clearly in reply to that name-calling.

-Terry

I did say it in a rude way, I suppose.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

08/06/2004 09:54:34 PM · #19

Originally posted by Alexx:

The contests on this site are time sensitive. They have to be shot within a certain time frame. The digital camera lets you record this data. Film does not, unless you have one that makes those ugly date stamps, and those are too easily manipulated.

Using film you could submit a shot taken at anytime outside of the challenge period, which would be cheating according to current site rules and regulations.

You argument for film inclusion on this site is moot. Go find another site that allows scans of photos.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/07/2004 12:27:53 AM · #20

The use of the word steroid to describe digital wasn't meant as an insult, although that is probably not obvious. We may not like steroids, but we can be impressed by the results. After acquisition enhancements produce really cool imagery, on the other hand, well lit film can have it's own unique look also. Well lit digital is also a world unto itself.

I just don't see it as a positive thing to exclude film originated cinematography when what this website is basically about is the celebration of cool looking imagery.

I'm not suggesting that film directly compete with your digital contests since those are done on a relatively "quick" turnaround. The complete exclusion of film imagery seems to be unnecessary.

Maybe a "film gallery" would be a neat way to recognize film without entangling it in your digital competitions.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

08/07/2004 01:09:07 AM · #21

Originally posted by Alexx:

Maybe a "film gallery" would be a neat way to recognize film without entangling it in your digital competitions.

I see one small problem. You can't display a film photograph on a digital medium such a this without scanning into a digital format. Then you would be displaying a digital photograph and not film.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

08/07/2004 02:15:11 AM · #22

Originally posted by Alexx:

The complete exclusion of film imagery seems to be unnecessary.

Maybe a "film gallery" would be a neat way to recognize film without entangling it in your digital competitions.

Actually, the members at least, already have this feature to a certain extent. While we don't have a "film gallery" area, we do have a "portfolio" option that allows us to upload any type of image, regardless of how it was initially created.

Of course, in order for an image to be uploaded it has to be digitized into JPG or GIF form. :)

Message edited by author 2004-08-07 02:16:20.

08/07/2004 09:07:27 PM · #23

Originally posted by louddog:

Ok lets. Album vs CD, Album has MORE dynamic range, you just never hear it because you didn't own the right stuff. Doesn't mean that records are better, just different. But wouldn't it be weird if some website only played CD originated music and rejected album originated music. You would, probably, think it weird.

VHS - DVD, Vhs, in many instances it's easier to search a VHS, again, if you own the right VHS machine. Not all DVD's are created equal. I saw someone try and find a shot and it took much longer trying to navigate the chapter skips and determine what speed to use to locate the shot. It would have been much quicker to simply fast forward to the area they knew it was in and the do a visual high speed search on a VHS. Instead they kept chapter skipping and stopping, kept overshooting the spot, "rewinding" too much, and repeating the whole mess again and again. Most people end up using a speed that is no faster, and usually slower, than what A Video can do. Doesn't mean that Video is better, just different.

Horse and Buggy versus car. You are an absolute idiot if you think that cars are superior in all instances to a horse and buggy. Check back in fifty years and we'll see on that one.

Can string - cell phone, tell that to someone trapped in a building. None of your examples are absolutes. But your attitude that they are absolutes are what is wrong about sites like this. It's a smug attitude that belies the past and acts like there is only one course to take.