| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2004 04:40:51 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I don't see so much a difference between digital and film here as much as technical perfection vs. gutsy, from-the-hip shooting. Your second set of shots, Gordon, reminds of the kind of images that lomography begets: a shoot-before-you-think approach (that I'm sure wasn't true, but the second set seems more emotional and 'sloppy' but in the wonderful way a watercolor painting is 'sloppy').
I've been doing lots of hiking these days, and taking lots of macros. Thanks for inspiring me to try new things, Gordon! Now I can't wait to take 'sloppy' photos! |
Makes it all worthwhile ;)
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:06:03 PM · #52 |
I do a test with some of my clients: I have to prints of exactly the same portrait set up, one is shot on Velvia 50 Professional RVP, and one shot with Nikon D1x; both were printed on Fujifilm Fujicolor Crystal Archive, film print was done traditionally, digital print was done on a Lambda printer.
I have shown it to a number of people, including professional photographers, the results are so random that they show no one can tell the difference; even people who claim to prefer the feel of real fiml. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:08:40 PM · #53 |
Good point about black and white images. I don't have the ability to shoot 16 bit images so I haven't explored the limitations in the editing process though I am aware some of the digital printing limitations. I recently printed several balck and white digital images at home and was initially very pleased but quickly was a little disappointed when I noticed the banding in the areas of smooth tonal gradations. It's not major for my own use as an amateur but isn't what I would consider professional quality. It's one of those things I have to live with for now until I can get 14 or 16 bit capability throughout the whole process.
As an amateur on a limited budget I basically have two choices. I can shoot film, and less of it, and get prints made with a beautiful quality to the print but where I have far less control over the look of the image itself or I can shoot digitally and have a lot of control over the image except for some of the flaws inherent in digital photography. I choose digital because I want as much control as possible over the look of the image. I know that the images may not be as luscious and smooth as film but in the end it is the power of the image itself that is the most important aspect of photography. I like knowing that I am getting better at image editing and eventually the distracting elements of digital will be greatly minimized so I think the potential of shooting digital is greater, at least for budget-minded amateurs like me.
T
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:19:36 PM · #54 |
| I went through a phase of discussing this issue with a few older film photographers. One man was expressing how I can never achieve what i want with digital...not gallery quality work at least. My arguement is that I have not the money or time to invest in the proper film darkroom equipment...nor the medium or large format camera's etc...though that play would be fabulous. My stance remained...that I would make digital work for me...it is all that I have. When I showed this man a few actual printed images I had taken (not printer prints), he didnt believe that they were digital. It made me wonder if the digital age intimidates photographers who are set up with galleries and studios and mass amounts of money in film equipment. I think the ability of digital will greatly improve...and our ability in controlling the results will greatly improve. It's a learning curve we are all faced with. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:26:48 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
It made me wonder if the digital age intimidates photographers who are set up with galleries and studios and mass amounts of money in film equipment. I think the ability of digital will greatly improve...and our ability in controlling the results will greatly improve. It's a learning curve we are all faced with. |
When I took my first PageMaker class circa 1990, the teacher consoled us in our struggles with the fact that the person who had been doing what we were doing longer than anyone else in the world had been doing it for six years ...
What you get today out of a $600 slide scanner today may rival what it took a $75,000 drum scanner to do in the 1980's. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:26:53 PM · #56 |
I think the 'can you tell the difference' themes are something else - I've had similar comments about my digital work. I certainly think that high quality studio work on a top end DSLR like a 1DX can certainly stand up to equally high quality film studio work on a slow speed, fine grain film like ISO 50 velvia.
My point isn't that it can't. The distinction I'm trying to draw is that film is different. It does look different, particularly at the edges of the performance curves, when you are pushing the exposure latitude of either digital or film (something unlikely to happen in studio portraiture for example)
The physical behaviour and response of the recording media is different - that is a well documented fact. In many ways film capture is also inferior to digital - but this isn't really an inferior/ superior type discussion - it is just a recognition that it is different In many of the ways that it is different, I really prefer the feel and apperance of film results, even if I can spend a lot of time manipulating digital to look somewhat similar.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:32:29 PM · #57 |
| point taken. I get frustrated by the digital limitations too...but I wouldnt call it a blandness. ;) |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:38:14 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think the 'can you tell the difference' themes are something else - I've had similar comments about my digital work. I certainly think that high quality studio work on a top end DSLR like a 1DX can certainly stand up to equally high quality film studio work on a slow speed, fine grain film like ISO 50 velvia.
My point isn't that it can't. The distinction I'm trying to draw is that film is different. It does look different, particularly at the edges of the performance curves, when you are pushing the exposure latitude of either digital or film (something unlikely to happen in studio portraiture for example)
The physical behaviour and response of the recording media is different - that is a well documented fact. In many ways film capture is also inferior to digital - but this isn't really an inferior/ superior type discussion - it is just a recognition that it is different In many of the ways that it is different, I really prefer the feel and apperance of film results, even if I can spend a lot of time manipulating digital to look somewhat similar. |
Gordon, what would be a type of situation where a digital would lack the "feel" of film?
You give me a situation (as you know with film you really have to plan) and the look you want, and I will make a test with both digital and film.
And I understand what you mean by quality, it's just that in my experience no professional or amature could tell the difference in "feel", and often mistake one for another, when it comes to looking at finished prints side by side.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:38:48 PM · #59 |
Ultimately, for me, the emergence of digital as an *acceptable* medium for capturing relatively high quality still images has meant that I can afford (both in terms of time and money) to remain a hobbyist photographer at all. To me, the value in being able to snap that next shot without a significant outlay of additional cost more than offsets any loss of quality in going from film to digital.
Gordon, this is a fantastic conversation and I commend you for starting it. It reminds me how lucky I am to even have a film/digital choice. So many creative, soulful people out there can't even manage to obtain a clunky old film body or the time to use it to full effect. I feel so lucky to be around during the current era of photographic technology. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 05:57:32 PM · #60 |
Here's a review of the Canon EOS 1Ds compared to scan of 35mm and medium format.
And here's a review of a Medium format Digital back.
Film is different, less convenient and digital is quickly outclassing it. There's no turning back...Does film has it's place in 2004? Of course, I love playing in a darkroom with all sorts of chemicals and watching a picture appear on a piece of photographic paper. Love the smell of those developers and fixers...I also cannot afford to shoot as many pictures with film as I shoot with my digital camera. From a commercial point of view Digital wins hands down, no contest.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 06:59:20 PM · #61 |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 07:47:18 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
These rather absurd statements make me wonder how knowledgeable you are about film photography. What images can you get with digital that you can only 'dream of with film'? Any photograph can be manipulated in PS. Photographers and graphic designers have been creating digital artwork for years using scanned film prints and artwork. I have a very difficult time believing that digital photography, in two years, will approach the quality of a large format work, ever. For example, all the reviews I've read of the new 8 mp cameras complain about the noise at ratings higher than 250. Digital collects light in a completely different way than film. Film records what is there to be seen. The detail of the image depends on the speed of the film. With digital, the camera makes guesses about the finer details based on the nearest pixel. This is why we experience noise and artifacts. Similar comparisons can be made about digital vs analog sound recording. Digital is a very convenient and inexpensive way of recording data. There is no question vast improvements have been made in both areas. In addition to a digital camera, I own a DVD player, a digital 8-track recorder, a digital effects processor, a digital camera, a CD player, a CD recorder. I'm not anti-digital. I just don't buy the argument that it is better. I also have a VCR, a turntable, old-fashioned effects pedals, and I'm not ready to give up film completely. |
i have produced around 200 black and white pictures in traditional 35 mm film format in a fully equipped darkroom. i think that gives me at least little bit of experience to talk about digital vs traditional film developement. and it is true every picture can be scanned and editted as pleased. but film will loose its quality fast unless you have thousands of dollars worth of professional grade scanners.. scanners get as expensive as all other film equipment. yes if you have thousands and thousands of dolalrs to invest in these different format film cameras, and film and dark room equipment and scanners and this and that be my guess and suit yourself. with digital you can go out buy a point and shoot digicam for 300 bucks and a low end photo editting suit for 200 bucks and you can start producing artistry that will rival film in most aspects may be if not in resolution
this photos was taken by me with my 300 dolalrs 3 mp fujifilm finepix as an example:
 
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 19:52:24. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:26:50 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
Originally posted by melismatica:
These rather absurd statements make me wonder how knowledgeable you are about film photography. What images can you get with digital that you can only 'dream of with film'? Any photograph can be manipulated in PS. Photographers and graphic designers have been creating digital artwork for years using scanned film prints and artwork. I have a very difficult time believing that digital photography, in two years, will approach the quality of a large format work, ever. For example, all the reviews I've read of the new 8 mp cameras complain about the noise at ratings higher than 250. Digital collects light in a completely different way than film. Film records what is there to be seen. The detail of the image depends on the speed of the film. With digital, the camera makes guesses about the finer details based on the nearest pixel. This is why we experience noise and artifacts. Similar comparisons can be made about digital vs analog sound recording. Digital is a very convenient and inexpensive way of recording data. There is no question vast improvements have been made in both areas. In addition to a digital camera, I own a DVD player, a digital 8-track recorder, a digital effects processor, a digital camera, a CD player, a CD recorder. I'm not anti-digital. I just don't buy the argument that it is better. I also have a VCR, a turntable, old-fashioned effects pedals, and I'm not ready to give up film completely. |
i have produced around 200 black and white pictures in traditional 35 mm film format in a fully equipped darkroom. i think that gives me at least little bit of experience to talk about digital vs traditional film developement. and it is true every picture can be scanned and editted as pleased. but film will loose its quality fast unless you have thousands of dollars worth of professional grade scanners.. scanners get as expensive as all other film equipment. yes if you have thousands and thousands of dolalrs to invest in these different format film cameras, and film and dark room equipment and scanners and this and that be my guess and suit yourself. with digital you can go out buy a point and shoot digicam for 300 bucks and a low end photo editting suit for 200 bucks and you can start producing artistry that will rival film in most aspects may be if not in resolution
|
I disagree that one needs thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment to get film prints that equal the quality of a $300 dollar digital camera, which is what your conclusion seems to indicate. Black and white darkroom equipment is not expensive and one can buy used medium format cameras for very reasonable prices and 35mm cameras for next to nothing. Most color photographers (and many who work in b&w) actually have their prints made at professional labs. The control is in the shooting process which brings me full circle to the point that was made by me and I believe, Gordon, that traditional camera work in many ways forces a photographer to make careful decisions and choices.
You seem awfully defensive regarding digital, as if I'm attacking you personally. I think it is a terrific medium that allows for a lot of speed and convenience. I just don't agree that it has reached the standard of film and
I also don't agree that film is as difficult and expensive a medium as you suggest. What about the cost of printer ink and archival quality paper? I hardly ever make prints because of this. I can buy a very good 35 mm camera for a fraction of the cost of the typical digital camera that that a DPC member uses. I can buy a negative scanner for under $1000 dollars today and am actually considering it.
Providence has a number of facilities where people can use darkroom space at very little cost. I'm sure many cities have similar places. There are also universities, community colleges, and high school darkrooms that are usually available to the public under certain conditions. Film photography is in no way in danger of becoming obsolete.
Just let me stress that I'm not trashing digital camera or the output of digital camera users. I see some really great work done with digital cameras. I'm quite happy with some of my own digital images produced with my outdated Nikon Coolpix 700 (under 2 mp). Like I said, I'm here aren't I? |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:39:16 PM · #64 |
I agree to a certain extent about the feel of digital prints compared to film. Digital cameras are used so often to edit pictures and make them that much more perfect. I just got a digital camera 3 months ago, after worries of losing the "soul" of photographing using my old film Pentax camera.
I am very happy with that decision, though. If we are going to use the term "soul", then I would say using digital cameras is better for the environment. Less film and pictures to throw away (I guess we do inconvenience a lot of electrons now). And if you think about it, camera film was a new technology at one point. Why take photographs when you can paint or draw something?
I don't see a major problem in terms of "soul" with the new technology of digital photography. And as someone said, you don't have to manipulate the images. You can leave them be, and they are just as impactful as any results from film. I, for one, enjoy manipulating images and making them that much more appealing.
When I am photographing with my digital camera, I still approach the whole act with the same soulful approach I always have with the regular film camera. I enjoy it just as much. I think it's up to each individual's interpretation on the "soul" of digital and film photography. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:39:59 PM · #65 |
| I prefere noise to neatimage. Neatimage and softwares alike make images have a plastic unnatural look and feel. Sometimes noise actualy makes an image look better it gives a certain old desolation mood. When the noise desn't look good I prefere to trash the photo. Neatimage sucks it's artifacts are verry visible and unpleasant to my eye. And yes I also vote acordingly highly neatimaged photos. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:41:56 PM · #66 |
i am sorry but the truth is that film photography is living its last years and will come to a near extinction in the near future (about 5 to 10 years).. digital is now almost cauhgt up with 35 mm and in near future will be far more superior to anything we have ever seen in the past. kodak already discontinued their reloadable film cameras.. film in time will become a novelty item and probably will only be used by the extreme enthusiast and the people who cant let go of the past. perhaps film and digital dont look exactly the same but in time i ams ure digital will have advancements which will make it even more flexible than it is today. film is a dying medium doest matter who says what. it is just like anything old and will be replaced.
here is an article about this for anyone to read:
film is dead
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 20:43:06. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:53:07 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
i am sorry but the truth is that film photography is living its last years and will come to a near extinction in the near future (about 5 to 10 years).. digital is now almost cauhgt up with 35 mm and in near future will be far more superior to anything we have ever seen in the past. kodak already discontinued their reloadable film cameras.. film in time will become a novelty item and probably will only be used by the extreme enthusiast and the people who cant let go of the past. perhaps film and digital dont look exactly the same but in time i ams ure digital will have advancements which will make it even more flexible than it is today. film is a dying medium doest matter who says what. it is just like anything old and will be replaced.
here is an article about this for anyone to read:
film is dead |
There will be less film used, no doubt, in the future but it is long from dead. Age has nothing to do with it and it's not like the quality of film has gotten worse as it has gotten older. Not everyone cares about new technology when the older technology works perfectly well for them. There is absolutely no good reason why both film and digital formats can't peacefully co-exist together and I am certain they will for a long time to come.
T
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 08:59:35 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by timj351:
There will be less film used, no doubt, in the future but it is long from dead. Age has nothing to do with it and it's not like the quality of film has gotten worse as it has gotten older. Not everyone cares about new technology when the older technology works perfectly well for them. There is absolutely no good reason why both film and digital formats can't peacefully co-exist together and I am certain they will for a long time to come.
T |
even though those toughts are nice and everything, i can bet my life that film photography in 10 years even may be 5 will be as common as the number of people who have a ford model-T in their garage(i used slight excaggeration here). and instead of saying "i will never take my film to wal-mart for developing" we will say " i will never take my memmory card to wal-mart for digital printing".. i thought this one was an obvious one but i guess it wasnt...
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 21:01:44. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:11:04 PM · #69 |
It's very interesting reading all the opinions on this matter. I remember when I taught theatre arts my first three years as a teacher (way back in the mid 90's) and neither I nor my school had a digital camera (they were too expensive then), and I used black and white film to take head shots of my students when we studied resumes and portfolios for actors. I spent a ton of money on film and processing each year to help them create portfolios...along with all the shots of shows and practices (none was reimbursed, either). Now, if I were still in the classroom, it would be so easy to take digital shots of them and print them out...for our purposes, and for the purposes of most normal folks out here, digital is the way to go. I don't know anyone, other than maybe one or two people who've mentioned it on this site, who buy film in bulk or load their own film...I mean really, who does that? Most of the folks on this site don't make their livings as photographers...maybe a few do, or do it as a sideline, but most are hobbyists, who found this site while searching for DIGITAL photography tips and forums (hence DPC). If the whole digital thing makes anyone feel soulless or upset about what this world is coming to, go out and shoot film. Have fun.
I kind of think the whole situation is akin to what my husband has gone through with the advent of digital video...he's trained in film, but now, any kid with a DV cam can create the same kind of shorts and feature-length films he worked his hind end off to create with the real thing. They can create better effects faster, cheaper, and more spectacularly than what he did...and that really upset him for a long time. But now he's accepted the fact that the world and technology has moved on, so he's trained in digital video and Avid editing to stay afloat.
Gosh, I've gone on and on. Pick one...film or digital...then go take some pictures to show us! LOL :o)
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:13:26 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
It's very interesting reading all the opinions on this matter. I remember when I taught theatre arts my first three years as a teacher (way back in the mid 90's) and neither I nor my school had a digital camera (they were too expensive then), and I used black and white film to take head shots of my students when we studied resumes and portfolios for actors. I spent a ton of money on film and processing each year to help them create portfolios...along with all the shots of shows and practices (none was reimbursed, either). Now, if I were still in the classroom, it would be so easy to take digital shots of them and print them out...for our purposes, and for the purposes of most normal folks out here, digital is the way to go. I don't know anyone, other than maybe one or two people who've mentioned it on this site, who buy film in bulk or load their own film...I mean really, who does that? Most of the folks on this site don't make their livings as photographers...maybe a few do, or do it as a sideline, but most are hobbyists, who found this site while searching for DIGITAL photography tips and forums (hence DPC). If the whole digital thing makes anyone feel soulless or upset about what this world is coming to, go out and shoot film. Have fun.
I kind of think the whole situation is akin to what my husband has gone through with the advent of digital video...he's trained in film, but now, any kid with a DV cam can create the same kind of shorts and feature-length films he worked his hind end off to create with the real thing. They can create better effects faster, cheaper, and more spectacularly than what he did...and that really upset him for a long time. But now he's accepted the fact that the world and technology has moved on, so he's trained in digital video and Avid editing to stay afloat.
Gosh, I've gone on and on. Pick one...film or digital...then go take some pictures to show us! LOL :o) |
very well said laurie! |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:27:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I don't know anyone, other than maybe one or two people who've mentioned it on this site, who buy film in bulk or load their own film...I mean really, who does that? |
Let's not forget one important thing. This is a digital photography site, of course we are not going to here from very many people who shoot with film.
I personally find digital perfect for my needs but I find it a real shame that there is such a push to eliminate film. Let it happen on it's own if it is going to happen at all but we don't need to be trying to force it to happen. It happens when people exaggerate film's demise, this get's people thinking that it is dying and then they stop considering using film when it might very well be perfect for their individual needs.
T
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:31:04 PM · #72 |
| I use two cameras when I know I am going somewhere I would like to have photos developed. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:34:45 PM · #73 |
A couple of people have mentioned my 'nostalgia' or that I'm living in the past. I feel the need to point out that that is about 180 degrees away from the reality. My first and main photographic experiences have been in the last two years. The first camera I ever used was digital, I've only until recently shot digital exclusively.
I don't have a nostalgia for film from my past, or from years of experience with film - in fact the opposite is true - almost all my experience is with digital.
However film from the limited experience I have has some things to offer over and above the digital experience - this doesn't mean digital is terrible, nor does it mean film is terrible - they are different things - as tim Mentioned, possibly able to co-exist - after all, there are occasional people in the world who still paint too... |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:51:11 PM · #74 |
| with film...50% of control is still in the darkroom. I could never take my images to a lab...even a professional lab...and have them come out as I would have wanted. There are still so many little nuances with dodging and burning and chemicals and exposure and paper...from the moment the film is removed from the camera. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 09:54:50 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
i am sorry but the truth is that film photography is living its last years and will come to a near extinction in the near future (about 5 to 10 years).. digital is now almost cauhgt up with 35 mm and in near future will be far more superior to anything we have ever seen in the past. kodak already discontinued their reloadable film cameras.. film in time will become a novelty item and probably will only be used by the extreme enthusiast and the people who cant let go of the past. perhaps film and digital dont look exactly the same but in time i ams ure digital will have advancements which will make it even more flexible than it is today. film is a dying medium doest matter who says what. it is just like anything old and will be replaced.
here is an article about this for anyone to read:
film is dead |
This is a ridiculous statement to make. My husband made a funny point after I re-hashed this thread with him. Voltaire said the Bible would be out of print in 100 years. People have also made this kind of projection about vinyl and turntables and it has yet to become fact. It is true that Kodak is discontinuing the Advantix system but that is not an indication of the future obsolesence of film. Many film formats have come and gone but film itself isn't going anywhere. It is not a question of a small group of luddites refusing to let go of the past. Many well-known film photographers have embraced digital technology while continuing to work with film. The way in which digital cameras (and digital sound recording devices) record information will have to be vastly improved in order to compare with film and analog devices. Digital approximates a certain amount of information that analog records exactly. Digital audio lacks the fullness and clarity of analog audio because digital audio does not record the same amount of detail. It makes approximations. A recording on vinyl with a superior stylus sounds so much richer then a digital recording on comparable equipment. This is why people pay $100 or more for a good stylus and keep their records in good condition. We already know the fallacy of the indesctructable CD. When you start comparing analog to something like an MP3 there is absolutely no doubt the superiority of vinyl.
The same can be said for the digital camera sensor vs. film. A slow speed film will pick up far greater actual detail then any sensor will. In a highly detailed, contrasty scene, sensors have to approximate a certain amount of the information. In other words, they make it up based on an educated guess which is based on the surrounding pixels. This is why noise, color abberations, and artifacts occur. As I already mentioned, the newest 8 mp cameras have problems with noise at the higher ISO ratings so they haven't fixed this problem yet.
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 21:58:11. |
|
