| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2004 10:53:17 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by rgarciah55:
Let me see... Working in a confined space with a dim red light, breathing harmful chemical fumes.... It isn't really appealing to me.
Specially thinking what those chemicals do to Earth's ecosystem, I think that there's no stopping digital taking over film, as technology will equal and even top film quality pictures. It is just a matter of time. |
This is a bit of a fallacy. The chemicals for developing film are just as dangerous to the environment as the chemicals and processes used to create electronic equipment. I am fairly sure that the high-end Dye Sublimation printers also use a significant number of noxious chemicals in the creation of the 'film' that is melted into the paper.
The only significant difference is your first point. You won't come in direct contact with the chemicals yourself. Although, if you really wanted to, you could trust all of your printing to a photo lab and then you won't have to worry about getting in touch with those chemicals either. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 10:56:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The argument I find most persuasive is that film has a wider dynamic range than digital. Can't remember where but I read in a forum that the Mk II and the 20D will put that idea to rest. Maybe so but the S3 Pro is supposed to go a long way down that path too. I'm looking forward to full reviews of all the new models promised for this fall, including the Minolta DSLR. |
Not All film is wider than a good DSLR sensor. You left Nikon D70 with the custom curves feature aside. This camera this feature to get better dinamyc range. Only negative film has the full lattitude of 9 Stops, but with the sacrifice of contrast range, that in Digital is better or equal the best transparency film. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 11:29:18 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
The chemicals for developing film are just as dangerous to the environment as the chemicals and processes used to create electronic equipment. |
Yup, any given semiconductor fab is full of large vats of hazardous chemicals and decontamination showers. Not the most environmentally friendly process ever created, though we are at least trying to improve things, by removing lead from all products and generally getting better at not dumping stuff in to the water supply. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 11:33:40 AM · #29 |
The main difference is similar to analogue sound recording. For simplicity consider a sine wave. Digital breaks it into distinct units. So instead of getting a continous wave returned from the input what you get back is a sine wave with a staircase countour. There is some information missing, but the ear gladly trades it for the inherent noise in analogue.
Silver halide is so microscopic that when a base is properly covered
you get a continuos tone without any step ladder effect. Digital, by its very nature to make distinct units, creates visible artifacts specially when it deal with diagonal lines. You must remember that the sensors are a matrix with a fixed alignment so what is recorded as vertical and horizontal is easy to execute than circles or lines cutting across the matrix. What this means is that the more pixels, the better, yet there is no clear answer except that more pixels are better.
Film doe not have a matrix problem and will render all shapes and forms without the need for correction software.
Of course, keep in mind that digital is evolving. We are at the low end or not quite to the halfway mark and improvement is forever making it better.
I like it because to make an unsharp mask in film is a big deal as well as dealing with enlargers, chemicals etc. So while it does have limitations, it is all dependent on the size print you seek and its purpose of use. And even though we are still below the middle mark, digital has been used to great advantage in many fields, including advertising.
So while the pixel has a fixed dimension, silver halide is almost microscopic and still able to render more faithfully with no visible stair effect which is often found in digital. Also, the waste of paper and chemicals to reach a good print has no comparison to the adobe darkroom.
To conlude, film is better but the trade-offs make digital a viable contender and of you work within the limitations satisfaction will be found.
A professional photographer considers the 35MM the smallest format. When you want a poster or mural you go the medium format which then starts at 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 to the more comfortable 4 by 5. The bigger the better and pictures taken with an 8 by 10 view camera dwarfs the other formats.
The first problem with digital is the small sensor in most cameras. But even a full size 35mm sensor jumps the price right through the roof. Prices are coming down and the good news is that digital gets better and better. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 11:48:54 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
So while the pixel has a fixed dimension, silver halide is almost microscopic and still able to render more faithfully with no visible stair effect which is often found in digital. ... A professional photographer considers the 35MM the smallest format. |
When I was making slides from digital, the tech who installed the equipment said that the physical grain size of the 100-speed slide film we were using was approximately equal to imaging at 8000 pixels-per-inch. However, there was rarely a visible difference when imaging files as small as 8MB (more like 1000 ppi).
The other "advantage" of film is that the grains are asymmetrical and somewhat randomly distributed, while the digital sensors are currently available only in fixed arrays.
Message edited by author 2004-08-30 11:50:48. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 11:59:09 AM · #31 |
I think the thrust of the original question is more an issue of how much of any of this is visible in the end print - assuming an equally competent photographer using the best available equipment and technique, and printing to a resonable size (say 11x14) and viewed from a normal viewing distance - 3 to 4 feet.
Can you tell which is film and which is digital ?
Does it require a huge enlargment and a microscopic examination ?
If not, and only considering the end results, which is better ?
(I talked to John about this independantly from this forum, so feel qualified in explaining his question)
I believe the majority of the differences (not even advantages per se) relate to the capture and print production process, rather than the end results for all meaningful usage.
Certainly there are differences when you go outside the 'comfort zone' of the resolution of any given format, by enlarging too much, but if you assume both are used within the scope of what they can usefully produce, what is the advantages in the end result of film over digital ? |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:04:55 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I believe the majority of the differences (not even advantages per se) relate to the capture and print production process, rather than the end results for all meaningful usage. |
Absolutely -- for myself, while doing all my own analog processing is possible in theory, it is completely impractical in real life for numerous reasons.
Digital allows me to capture and process images under my own control for every step, except for the final print production (usually) ... even the cheapest of which looks better than anything I ever produced with film. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:32:31 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Certainly there are differences when you go outside the 'comfort zone' of the resolution of any given format, by enlarging too much, but if you assume both are used within the scope of what they can usefully produce, what is the advantages in the end result of film over digital ? |
To me the very advantage in the end result is the tought time. When shoting film you need to have the plenty certain of your exposure, natural effects, thecniques and other things before run the shutter. These things may be left aside with digital, because you can see the results instantly. The "shoting process" in film, lend to photography a time top think about the shot. This has ever a positive impact in fine results. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:40:35 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GoodEnd:
To me the very advantage in the end result is the tought time. When shoting film you need to have the plenty certain of your exposure, natural effects, thecniques and other things before run the shutter. These things may be left aside with digital, because you can see the results instantly. The "shoting process" in film, lend to photography a time top think about the shot. This has ever a positive impact in fine results. |
Thing is - this has nothing to do with digital vs. film. You can choose to shoot digital in exactly the same way. I agree with you that thinking about your exposure, getting the technical aspects correct and making sure everything is composed how you want it before you press the shutter is important. I think that's irrelevant of the capture media.
Digital may encourage certain people to be lazy, but then that is the issue with a lazy photographer, not a flexible medium. I would find it very unlikely that they were previously very careful, precise and excellent film photographers who suddenly found themselves too lazy to make a good image with a digital camera. A similar argument is made about 35mm film photography, encouraging sloppy work habits compared to Large Format. Again - only true if people are sloppy in the first place or choose to be that way.
Message edited by author 2004-08-30 12:43:53. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:47:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Well, the only film photgraphs I ever took were the causual family snap shots. However, lately I've gotten the itch to experiment with film. I just won a 1968 Yashica G Electro 35 rangefinder camera that is supposed to be in excellent working condition. I can't wait to get it and try it out. I plan on using it mostly for black and white and IR. I'm also bidding on an old medium format TLR just because I want to experiment plus they make good collector items. However, as of right now I have no interest in doing my own developing and I will stay mostly digital.
June
PS. I actually forgot to state my point: I will give you my opinion on film vs. digital when I get my hands on the film cameras. |
Perhaps if you submit the original photo (with exif info) as your entry, then you might not have to worry... It's the photographer and the quality that counts, not the camera, right? :)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:56:10 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...
Digital may encourage certain people to be lazy, but then that is the issue with a lazy photographer, not a flexible medium. I would find it very unlikely that they were previously very careful, precise and excellent film photographers who suddenly found themselves too lazy to make a good image with a digital camera. ... |
I agree to an extent. However, I believe the digital medium does encourage a more care-free approach to image making. The price to be paid for mistakes is minimal compared to film, since we can always retake (well, maybe not "always", but most of the time...).
In the 70s I worked as a school and wedding photographer. Today I'm finding that, while my intent is to produce the best quality digital images, I'm just a tad less diligent about my camera settings as I was back then. It's a new way of doing things, and I need to learn to apply the same discipline I had 30 years ago...
(Maybe it's just a new-found laziness??)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 12:58:45 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
I agree to an extent. However, I believe the digital medium does encourage a more care-free approach to image making. The price to be paid for mistakes is minimal compared to film, since we can always retake (well, maybe not "always", but most of the time...). |
It only encourages that behavior in someone who is not interested in becoming proficient with the camera to start with... and possibly from those who don't make larger prints where attention to detail with the camera is much more important.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 01:47:12 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm still looking for reasons describing why film is better than digital... |
A3+ sized prints
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 02:32:07 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm still looking for reasons describing why film is better than digital... |
A3+ sized prints |
It´s not better! But as all things in the world, it´s defined by the pourpose of picture. If you plan to print 20" or more... then some film can help you. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 02:54:19 PM · #40 |
I wonder.... has any company ever tried to make a dual-format camera? Where the image is recorded digitally at first, and, if the photographer approves the image, it's then transferred to film?
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 02:58:39 PM · #41 |
For me, the difference is largely one of resources. I don't have the resources (money and space) to have an adequate darkroom (and no, the cost difference between a film SLR and a DSLR would not fund it). I have a computer already.
I honestly don't care whether an image was created on a photographic emulsion or a chip. I don't really care if it was manipulated in a darkroom or on a PC either. It's about the end result, the final image. How does it make the viewer feel? Is it effective? Does the person looking at it say "Wow!"?
I think it's absurd to say that one image is superior to another based solely on the process used to achieve it. Is an oil painting better than a watercolor? A pencil drawing better than one done in ink? |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 03:14:04 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GoodEnd:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm still looking for reasons describing why film is better than digital... |
A3+ sized prints |
It´s not better! But as all things in the world, it´s defined by the pourpose of picture. If you plan to print 20" or more... then some film can help you. |
Take a picture of a gradual color change and look :D
Or shoot medium format and compare.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 03:53:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by computerking:
I wonder.... has any company ever tried to make a dual-format camera? Where the image is recorded digitally at first, and, if the photographer approves the image, it's then transferred to film? |
That's no better than the digital photo then imaged to film instead of paper. You only have an analog film image where the light hits the film directly.
There are a lot of inexpensive "hybrid" cameras where (I believe) it shoots film, but as part of the processing they automatically scan the images so you end up with "digital" photos. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 03:58:14 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That's no better than the digital photo then imaged to film instead of paper. You only have an analog film image where the light hits the film directly.
There are a lot of inexpensive "hybrid" cameras where (I believe) it shoots film, but as part of the processing they automatically scan the images so you end up with "digital" photos. |
Gotcha. Unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 04:00:49 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by computerking:
I wonder.... has any company ever tried to make a dual-format camera? Where the image is recorded digitally at first, and, if the photographer approves the image, it's then transferred to film? |
One of the original pro digital cameras was a back for the Nikon F3.
If you shoot med format, it's just a matter of switching the digital back for a film one. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 04:04:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
I agree to an extent. However, I believe the digital medium does encourage a more care-free approach to image making. The price to be paid for mistakes is minimal compared to film, since we can always retake (well, maybe not "always", but most of the time...). |
It only encourages that behavior in someone who is not interested in becoming proficient with the camera to start with... and possibly from those who don't make larger prints where attention to detail with the camera is much more important. |
I agree with John here. In my case, I'm still working on developing a photographic eye. The reality is that you develop this vision by taking a lot of pictures and learning from the results. Digital encourages me to try (and learn from) a shot I'm not sure of. I would be much more reserved in my experiments if I were paying for each exposure, and much slower to learn. Although I'm creating far more images digitally than I would with film, I still put thought and preparation to each exposure - there's no carelessness brought on by digital.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 04:18:18 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by computerking:
I wonder.... has any company ever tried to make a dual-format camera? Where the image is recorded digitally at first, and, if the photographer approves the image, it's then transferred to film? |
text
My DSLR is convertible by changing the back for either digital or film. The camera body is a Nikon N90s and the digital back is a Kodak DCS460 6 megapixel sensor. Quality is superb for either film or digital. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:37:29 PM · #48 |
Take a picture of a gradual color change and look :D
Or shoot medium format and compare. [/quote]
Film has the potential for capturing more detail and more subtle color graduations then many digital cameras but that is only two aspects of the issue that primarily come into play with large prints. Another important aspect where it comes to digital is the precise control you can have over the "apparent" sharpness of an image. I don't have any firsthand experience with the unsharp mask in the film darkroom but I know it isn't as easy as in the digital darkroom and I am pretty certain it doesn't provide the same level of precision that you can get from the numerous sharpening methods available for digital editing. When used properly these methods can go a long way to bridging the gap, in regards to detail, between film and digital. In another way you can get a level of clarity in the image that is difficult to get with film. For a lot of my images it is also an attempt to re-create reality. I want to convince the viewer, for at least a moment, that an image is real as if they might be able to step into the scene. I think that having precise control over sharpness, color, tonal values and the ability to completely remove image noise with digital can more effectively create that illusion. Film can look amazing too and with a gallery size print I can easily get lost in the fine details but, at the same time, it's look and texture constantly remind me that it is film. From an artist perspective this is great and both formats are pretty equal at producing amazing artistic qualities. This is just my subjective opinion but I just think that when printing at an appropriate size for a given image that digital has a greater potential for achieving a look that is closer to reality. This is important to me for many of my images, particularily landscapes, but I also have an artistic side where I like to add effects like film grain and selective blurring and I still prefer the digital darkroom for these effects because of the ease and control I have over each process. Digital is better for me for my preferences only. I see no reason for film to ever go away because it is a fantastic format as well.
T
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 09:43:54 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Well, the only film photgraphs I ever took were the causual family snap shots. However, lately I've gotten the itch to experiment with film. I just won a 1968 Yashica G Electro 35 rangefinder camera that is supposed to be in excellent working condition. I can't wait to get it and try it out. I plan on using it mostly for black and white and IR. I'm also bidding on an old medium format TLR just because I want to experiment plus they make good collector items. However, as of right now I have no interest in doing my own developing and I will stay mostly digital.
June
PS. I actually forgot to state my point: I will give you my opinion on film vs. digital when I get my hands on the film cameras. |
Perhaps if you submit the original photo (with exif info) as your entry, then you might not have to worry... It's the photographer and the quality that counts, not the camera, right? :) |
HUH?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 09:48:48 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Greetings...
What are some of the common arguments that film photographers use to support their arguments that film is better than digital? |
Ok, hows about this.
You don't get that excitement like you used to when you picked up your prints from the developer. Or even better, when your developing some B&Ws in your own darkroom, slowly watching them appear onto your Ilford Glossy.
Digital will never ever match that feeling.
|
|
