| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2008 03:08:57 PM · #1 |
I realize I’m probably preaching to the choir considering this is a Digital photography website, but I know others have encountered this debate before.
A while ago I had a friend tell me that digital photography was “cheap” compared to film photography because you can see your picture before it is developed. In my opinion, digital photography still has a challenging aspect to it when compared to traditional film photography. Many traditional film users and anti-digital photographers say that it takes an element out of photography to be able to see your photographs before they are developed. Although you can see a small preview of your pictures, I think there is still an element of surprise when the pictures are converted to the computer. Looking at a 2" X 2" screen really doesn't give the pictures justice and many times I have found that the pictures I thought I had captured, were in fact something completely different.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:24:04 PM · #2 |
Trouble with film is ... you have to develop the film no matter what is on it. One keeper. Two keepers. However many "good" pictures there might be, the only way to find out is to throw money at it.
Digital, on the other hand, you can take all you want and never spend a penny on any image you don't want. I took a bunch of pictures over the weekend ... and threw every one of them away. (that's a little unusual for me, I'm a packrat and have a hard time deleting anything, but this pictures simply sucked!)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:29:10 PM · #3 |
| well You can turn off your preview on your camera which I do and wait to look at the pictures. I know when I used to shoot film the first thing you saw was the negative which was tiny then you saw a contact sheet tiny again. That was when I was developing my own film. If I was taking it to a lab I felt like had had less control than I do now. I would have to say film is better quality at least from what I can afford. But on the other hand I can go for a walk and tale 600 pictures. which would be 25 rolls of film and that is 35mm. If I was using a 120 camera that is 50 rolls of film. You consider the cost of the film and the processing that pays for my digital camera and that is just one trip. Granted a the negatives are higher resolution than my 6mp camera but I think the huge amount of quanity rules over the quality. With more shots you can attain greater results. Another thing I never hear alot people talk about but processing film uses alot of nasty chemicals and can bad for your health and the environment. Silver can do nasty things. Anyways Digital is alot cheaper and safer. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:32:10 PM · #4 |
Film is the greatest... I come to dpchallenge so i have experience of trying to get a good shot on assignment with a short deadline, but for my real photography, i'm about 95% film.
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back.
Film, in general, has better dynamic range, has no crop factor, and (important to me as a buddhist) gets your soul more balanced (I don't want instant gratification, make me wait a month, calm me down).
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:38:20 PM · #5 |
I developed my own b/w for years - and the smell of the chemicals is something I can do without...Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
Film is the greatest... I come to dpchallenge so i have experience of trying to get a good shot on assignment with a short deadline, but for my real photography, i'm about 95% film.
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back.
Film, in general, has better dynamic range, has no crop factor, and (important to me as a buddhist) gets your soul more balanced (I don't want instant gratification, make me wait a month, calm me down).
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:40:31 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back.
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
Interesting ... how much time do you spend in the dark room? Or are you against that too?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:43:49 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
An interesting comment from someone that develops and processes their own film in the darkroom. It sounds like you do a bunch of post processing already...just not on a computer |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:45:12 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
I developed my own b/w for years - and the smell of the chemicals is something I can do without...Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
Film is the greatest... I come to dpchallenge so i have experience of trying to get a good shot on assignment with a short deadline, but for my real photography, i'm about 95% film.
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back.
Film, in general, has better dynamic range, has no crop factor, and (important to me as a buddhist) gets your soul more balanced (I don't want instant gratification, make me wait a month, calm me down).
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
|
I used to do B&W Film photography. Even though, you cannot accomplish the detail level that film has to offer, Digital does give you the ability to shoot more, experiment, less cost, and less time consuming. I remember having to develop my film, and burn my prints and processing them thru the chemicals. I also remember how our professor used to tell us not to spend too much time in the dark room. The chemicals can do a number to you in the long run. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:52:43 PM · #9 |
| why not use both? get yourself a middle format camera cheap, like a rolleicord. it may be two different ways of shooting with both negative and positive sides. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 03:55:55 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gnarf:
why not use both? get yourself a middle format camera cheap, like a rolleicord. it may be two different ways of shooting with both negative and positive sides. |
exactly.
I love to use my Hasselblad sometimes. You're much more focussed on doing it right, instead of clicking and clicking with digital.
Besides that, it's cool to view the negatives after one week :D And I love the special quality film has.
I like doing both. Keeps me focussed.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:00:15 PM · #11 |
For challenging lighting set up and critical projects REAL photographers used Polaroid backs on their MF and large format cameras to "chimp" the shot.
It's now just a tool given to more photographers.
I have two words for those that refuse to see digital (and even photoshop) as just another tool: "Enjoy extinction."
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:16:21 PM · #12 |
digital is far less time consuming, and for lazy people like me it's the way to go. But I have fun smelling the intoxicating fumes of film chemicals in the dark room :P It's a lot more fun developing film photographs than post-processing for digital.
Also the film grain is far better than digital, you can't achieve the authenticity of grain with digital. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:21:18 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back. |
I'm one of the more purist types here, and I have to tell you that I literally grew up with a darkroom in the house since I was born (and learned to develop B&W in my very early teens). I developed B&W film for many, many years while working at a newspaper and for other projects... and I still have my enlarger set up in my basement to this day. And I can tell you that it is getting very, very dusty down there... |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:24:57 PM · #14 |
As the modern in-crowd would say, 'Aw, film is so yesterdayyyy!'
I have done my fair share with B&W, colour film and slide photography using a range of SLRs through the '80's and '90's.
Now, I use digital, film has gone in my books. I can't afford the film, processing and wastage. I have been with digital for about 8 years and have marvelled at the speed they have progressed.
For the type of photos I take and print, I doubt anyone could tell whether they were digital or film. Not only have the cameras improved, the printers get better and better. Should I want a large, high quality print, then I have a good friend who works for a Printroom!!:) |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:32:19 PM · #15 |
I think digital is cheaper BUT it's not free which is what a lot of people assume. How much cheaper depends on the volume. The other issue is that I just take far far more digi images then I did (or do) with film. You know... my brain knows what body is on the end of a lens... I can put the same lens on a film body and without thinking I take less pictures.... something I wish I could carry to digital :-/
Digi costs also depend on your archive plans, long term storage strategy [there is no real good option here yet] & deletion habits and whether you shoot RAW or straight to JPG. Some non-photg/video tech guys think I am nuts for having storage in TB not GB :shrug: but thats what it takes if you keep a lot of RAW files.
Each has it's own good and bad parts as far as feelings... I just love that film wind thing that I am sure most here just don't understand. Some love PS, some hate it; some would love dark rooms and some would hate it.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:48:53 PM · #16 |
I'm glad to see that people are responding to my post, I just need to clarify something. By "cheap" I meant "unfair/not the real way" instead of cheap as in $. I think some people got this mixed up in their posts, but I guess this just opens up another can of worms. Resopnd however you want, I just really want to know if people think digital is cheating in a sence when compared to film. I think there is still a lot of skill involved but I've been told it's not as hardcore as film and that film is the only "real" way to take pictures.
Message edited by author 2008-02-05 17:12:35. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:49:05 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by robs:
Digi costs also depend on your archive plans, long term storage strategy [there is no real good option here yet] & deletion habits and whether you shoot RAW or straight to JPG. Some non-photg/video tech guys think I am nuts for having storage in TB not GB :shrug: but thats what it takes if you keep a lot of RAW files. |
The movie industry recently concluded that the cost of archiving a feature film (on film) in a salt mine in some remote location costs about $1,500/years, while the cost of archiving a feature movie digitally -- including physical storage, and migrating hardware and formats -- will end up costing more like $220,000/year. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 04:58:54 PM · #18 |
I just don't see digital being less expensive. The primary reason is equipment costs. I shot all the Kodachrome, for over 20 years, using the same Minolta SRT-102 camera. I've bought 4 digital cameras, two DSLRs, in the past 10 years. I've had to pay for computers and software to do the processing. I know I've spent more in the past 5 years on digital photography than I spent in 40 years on film! Of course I've taken far more pictures in the past 5 years.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:06:55 PM · #19 |
Sometimes, I shoot film with my Hasselblads and then scan the negative into the computer with my Nikon 4kx4k scanner. There is no better image that I have seen that can compare to the quality, resolution, colourimetry and general appearance. Even if I shoot with my new Nikon D3 that results are still visibly different. Here are a few examples of film work related images. So, a hybrid approach is my favourite methodology.
The scan was 64MB, but the JPEG was just 93KB. On the raw file, I can zoom in and read the labels and model numbers on the feed!
This was three images shot on 21/4 x 21/4 and then scanned individually. The three images where stitched together into one shot as you see here. The combined image was 256MB and this JPEG is only 122KB
Message edited by author 2008-02-05 17:10:06.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:10:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by moolacoola:
... By "cheap" I meant "unfair/not the real way" instead of cheap as in $. I think some people got this mixed up in their posts ... |
I understood the difference. I can see merit in your point of view. Another way to look at it is that film is elitest and digital is democratic.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:10:47 PM · #21 |
-
Message edited by author 2008-02-05 17:14:58. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:12:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by moolacoola:
... By "cheap" I meant "unfair/not the real way" instead of cheap as in $. I think some people got this mixed up in their posts ... |
I understood the difference. I can see merit in your point of view. Another way to look at it is that film is elitest and digital is democratic. |
Haha, maybe by today's standards and perspective. However, just a few years ago, it might have been the opposite?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:12:49 PM · #23 |
GeneralE touches on a very good point about archival of photos. Just how long are your photos on digital media going to survive?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:21:26 PM · #24 |
Archiving cost & quality:
While archiving costs for digital *are* higher due to changes in technology and media age requiring "refreshing" of data and transport to new media, properly archived digital files are ageless, whereas physical media will age, and generational entropy is inevitable when transferring to new media. Digital files can be copied ad infinitum without generational entropy.
Image Quality:
For like formats, e.g. 35mm, the argument is dead, done over with. Digital has surpassed film, get over it. While "audiophiles" still pine for the clicks, pops & hiss of vinyl, "photophiles" pine for the grain, limited ISO range, reciprocity issues, development process sensitivity... the list goes on... of film.
Now when we talk about truly large film negatives, the only way digital competes in the detail department is with scanning cameras or stitching. And it's *very* difficult to duplicate the results of a large format camera with movements.
For the bulk of us, however, digital has supplanted film in almost all amateur, and the majority of professional applications. There's good reason for that. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:21:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by paynekj:
GeneralE touches on a very good point about archival of photos. Just how long are your photos on digital media going to survive? |
That is an old story and one that has sparked a great deal of industry debate. Film archiving has its problems too, some of them as significant. The older nitrate based films are bursting into flames and people have died and facilities destroyed as a result. Most often, archives get lost in the shuffle over time.
Old family negatives and slides processed at the local drug store tend to fade and deteriorate radically in just 10-20 years. So, the entire process most be considered when discussing archives, not just the media itself.
The real issue is the need to migrate archival content to modern day playback and display platforms. So, there is an inherent cost in both domains. The extremes of the example provided are exactly that, "extremes".
|
|
