| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2006 03:15:31 PM · #1 |
Wondering how people fight for digital nowadays. You know that situation when people tell you that "Film is where it's at, digital is just for those too lazy or without any real sense of photography".. So do you get the silent allies and say everybody uses it? Or... bring hard facts like it's financially cheaper (opposed to developing films all day)... just wondering how you argue for digital...
Fire away ;) |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:21:26 PM · #2 |
| I don't think it's as cheap as most seem to think but that is not a plus if you push digital because the people would expect cheaper prices. The obvious pro argument is speed and fancy effects from manipulation. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:26:31 PM · #3 |
I simply say "Who cares?"
You can take a picture with a fart and a prayer for all I care, as long as it looks good in the end (which in this case, it probably won't)
For me, the advantage was the amount of control and manipulation possible without the need for lots of extra equipment.
The major drawback, for me, is the loss of the tactile experience of working with film in a darkroom. Sitting at a computer just can't compare.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:32:20 PM · #4 |
I think the lazy part was in the beginning of digital, film is getting rare...
If film wasn't so expensive (polaroids (for hasselblad or view camera), film itself, developing film, print, scanning, etc) I'd go for film right away... with film you think of the composition better, because you don't have that much chances.
but, I don't really know the way to work in the darkroom, so digital and photoshop opened a lot of doors for me. the RAW file is my digital positive and PS does lots of things the dark room could handle also.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:37:26 PM · #5 |
I understand the mystique and glory of working in a darkroom. But, working in a darkroom has additional concerns - namely the chemicals used to develop and produce the images. Without proper ventilation, proper safety equipment (gloves, etc), working in the darkroom can be downright bad for your heath.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:49:00 PM · #6 |
I think that digital is infinitely more practical than film.
I'm too lazy to say any more than this...
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 03:51:03 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Without proper ventilation, proper safety equipment (gloves, etc), working in the darkroom can be downright bad for your heath. |
So can working at your computer. Ever hear of repetive motion injuries? |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 04:28:09 PM · #8 |
My line? I shoot digital and film. I sold one of my film SLRs but have no intention of getting rid of the other one.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 04:49:37 PM · #9 |
For a long time I shot film and then paid extra to have my best images converted to digital (only my best images because it was so friggin' expensive). Therefore, I was paying for the film, the developing, AND the digital conversion.
I finally threw in the towel and switched to a digital SLR since ultimately that was where I was going anyway. It just saves a lot of time, saves money, and IMO (especially today with my 5D), is producing far better results than I got out of my film-to-digital process.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 05:08:36 PM · #10 |
It's not digital vs film, it's digital & film.
I do not give a crap how something is created, as long as it is cool to look at.
In some way it is evolution.
They started with the camera obscura and painting the image it created as a positive final print (Vermeer did it). See that as the single-cell-organism.
Someone invented a way to create a lasting image on a chemically coated glass plate. These are the early dinosaurs.
Someone invented negative film, first b&w and then color. The dinosaurs ruled the world.
The digital sensor came in the seventies, slowly evolving into the affordable digital solution of today. This can be compared to human evolution. The dinosaurs are dying, humans are learning to walk upright for 4 million years and suddenly we have the industrial revolution and things start to change faster and faster.
In photography we are on the eve of the discovery of nuclear power...
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 05:10:26 PM · #11 |
This year we get to work with film in the darkroom at school, and the whole process really can't compare with sitting infront of the computer, but it's also very tedious, time consuming and rather expensive, as many have already pointed out.
It's also a lot harder to get the results you want with film and your editing capabilities are somehwat limited. But if it turns out really good in the end, it somehow means a little more to me than what I would get from digital for some reason.
The whole hands on expirience of handling the film and the paper and the enlargers is so much more intereting than doing the same old thing in photoshop for hours.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 05:18:19 PM · #12 |
Within 5 - 10 years film will be obsolete.
All the energy in R&D and marketing is in digital.
Manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Olympus and others all make far more models of digital than they do film.
The average MP is in the 8 to 10 range for dSLRs. Next year it will be 10 - 12MP. As soon as that hits 16+ for the average user the 'war' will be over.
All major newspapers, once large film consumers, are all digital now.
All major news and sports magazines are digital.
Medical imaging is going digital
one-hour print shops are now digital print centers
Kodak and Fuji film sales are down by 50% or more over the last 5 years.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 05:28:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Within 5 - 10 years film will be obsolete.
[snip]
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going. |
I don't believe it will be obsolete - but do think it will be relegated to a fine art niche - more exclusive & MUCH more expensive to have your portrait done in 'real' B&W than digitized B&W ..
can 'john or jane blow' of the street tell - nope, but it's the appearance of exclusivity that drives the price of a 'art object' not it's method of mfg... |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:25:50 PM · #14 |
there still is a long way until digital gets the same quality as film.
the Haselblad 39Mpixel camera gets very close to the quality of the 6x4.5 film, some say it's slightly better.
that means that the 6x6 film still produces better quality than the 39Mpixel back.
to get the same resolution as the 11"x13" large format camera you'll need 1.548Mpixels. that is 1.5 Giga pixels.
I can't see that coming in the next 5 years.....
and compairing film with digital is like compairing boats and plains, they'll both get you to your destination, the route is just different... |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:28:37 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
there still is a long way until digital gets the same quality as film. |
You mention the medium format camera. But in the 35mm format, I think we're already there. I much prefer what I get straight out of my 5D than what I used to get out of 35mm film.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:28:39 PM · #16 |
I have a very tempermental Film SLR it was my dad's actually I must pull that out again
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:31:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by DanSig:
there still is a long way until digital gets the same quality as film. |
You mention the medium format camera. But in the 35mm format, I think we're already there. I much prefer what I get straight out of my 5D than what I used to get out of 35mm film. |
I agree, but as soon as you go really pro, the 35mm looks like a hobby camera, I don't knoww any pro photographer that uses the 35mm in studio, they all use medium format hasselblad. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:45:13 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by DanSig:
there still is a long way until digital gets the same quality as film. |
You mention the medium format camera. But in the 35mm format, I think we're already there. I much prefer what I get straight out of my 5D than what I used to get out of 35mm film. |
I agree, but as soon as you go really pro, the 35mm looks like a hobby camera, I don't knoww any pro photographer that uses the 35mm in studio, they all use medium format hasselblad. |
pros that work in the studio using Blads are by no means driving business. that is only one type of pro photog I would bet that within 5 years the vast majority of all pro photogs will be digital. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:46:30 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
there still is a long way until digital gets the same quality as film.
the Haselblad 39Mpixel camera gets very close to the quality of the 6x4.5 film, some say it's slightly better.
that means that the 6x6 film still produces better quality than the 39Mpixel back.
to get the same resolution as the 11"x13" large format camera you'll need 1.548Mpixels. that is 1.5 Giga pixels.
I can't see that coming in the next 5 years.....
and compairing film with digital is like compairing boats and plains, they'll both get you to your destination, the route is just different... |
There already exists medium and lagre format digital that rival the quality of the respective film counterparts, it just not economically feasible in the those formats as it is in the 35mm format.
The point is, as demand shrivels for film in the tradionally high quantity selling formats, the larger formats will also begin to dwindle and manufacurers of medium as large format find it more difficult to compete.
For example, medium format has long been the chioce of wedding photographers. My sister got married a year ago, I hired a well known well respected wedding photographer. All digital. Everything from the 16x20 portrait to the huge wedding album was fantastic.
The advent of stocastic (inkjet) printers also has an impact. You no longer need the medium format negative/chrome to get the same quality print.
I'm an old film guy, I shot 4x5, Blads, and 35mm. I'm just saying that digital is improving at a rate that will make film unnecessary and unprofitable to sustain.
Message edited by author 2006-11-19 18:47:09.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:50:58 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
I agree, but as soon as you go really pro, the 35mm looks like a hobby camera, I don't knoww any pro photographer that uses the 35mm in studio, they all use medium format hasselblad. |
At our Intermountain Professional Photographers Association (IPPA, which is a charter of PPA) annual convention last month, of the attendees that were there, I think only 3 of them admitted to still using film. The rest had switched to digital.
The photographer that shot my daughter's wedding charges upwards of $6000 for a wedding. They use Nikon for their portraits and Canon for their candids. Both of which are digital.
So I think even the "pros" are on-the-move. I'm sure the die-hard medium format shooters will be around for a long time to come. But there's a lot of pros out there shooting digital now.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 06:52:32 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm just saying that digital is improving at a rate that will make film unnecessary and unprofitable to sustain. |
I have highlighted the really important part. the manufacturers could care less what you want to shoot. when they are no longer making money on film they will quit making and supporting it. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 07:19:40 PM · #22 |
| There's no fpchallenge is there? |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 09:06:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
There's no fpchallenge is there? |
The challenges would have to be longer to allow time to develop and scan the film, especially with color slide. :p |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 11:29:34 PM · #24 |
"Kiss my ass and pay attention to my images, not my gear."
|
|
|
|
11/19/2006 11:35:41 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I think that digital is infinitely more practical than film.
I'm too lazy to say any more than this... |
Ditto...
How's that for lazy? :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:21:54 PM EDT.
