We are (still) not worthy :-(

Nikolai

Probably an old news, but I just recently came upon these:

Film Vs Digital
and
Film Vs Digital Revisited

Coming from the editor of the one of the best photo/travelling magazines, Arizona Highways (superb magazine, to tell the truth), it kinda brings a very sobering point to all our "it's the photographer, not the camera" discussions.

Articles are very short, but if you are pressed for time and want an executive version, here you go:
"Unless you're shooting film 4x5 or larger format - you're out".

I guess I will not be submitting anything to AH anytime soon :dunno

flyingdutchie

Nikolai wrote:

Probably an old news, but I just recently came upon these:

Film Vs Digital
and
Film Vs Digital Revisited

Coming from the editor of the one of the best photo/travelling magazines, Arizona Highways (superb magazine, to tell the truth), it kinda brings a very sobering point to all our "it's the photographer, not the camera" discussions.

Articles are very short, but if you are pressed for time and want an executive version, here you go:
"Unless you're shooting film 4x5 or larger format - you're out".

I guess I will not be submitting anything to AH anytime soon

In his 'revisited' article, The writer is mostly worried about image manipulation.

He also states that "Personally, I believe the two can coexist"... but then again, earlier in the article he says "I explained our preference for film, particularly 4x5 original transparencies".

To me it seems they have a certain workflow there that they are not (yet) willing to give up.

Shay Stephens

One camera or technology can't satisfy every market known to exists. Don't even try. Thats why there are so many different types of film cameras (35mm, medium format, large format, etc). Digital is starting to get that kind of variety too. In the mean time, shoot for the markets that *will* accept your output

Nikolai

Thanks, Shay!

Shay Stephens wrote:

One camera or technology can't satisfy every market known to exists. Don't even try. Thats why there are so many different types of film cameras (35mm, medium format, large format, etc). Digital is starting to get that kind of variety too. In the mean time, shoot for the markets that *will* accept your output

Good point (as always:-)!
However, it's also another stone into the "size *does* matter" barrel... :
Cheers!

claudermilk

The articles strike me that he's a large-format afficionado & anything else is junk. Which is fine, he's entitled to his opinion. I also find it interested that he makes an implied swipe at digital users with the comment that many think the images are better *because* they're digital. Isn't he just falling into the opposite trap: thinking the 4x5s are better *because* they're film? Food for thought.

I would think images out of a 645 body with a P45 back ought to be plenty good enough these days.

ziggy53

As a followup to the discussion, 4x5 film/scanned vs Digital:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html


It just gets better and better.

ziggy53

Nikolai

Nice links!

ziggy53 wrote:

As a followup to the discussion, 4x5 film/scanned vs Digital:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html


It just gets better and better.

ziggy53

Thanks, Ziggy!

anwmn1

Okay though I am not a professional I will throw my .02 in here.

I prefer to shoot film and I can tell a digital print from a film print by looking at them. There are always lines and colors that look unatural and the depth of field is lost once you go big.

I think the point Arizona Highways is trying to get across is that to them the most important factors are image integrity and depth of field.

With digital it is very easy to manipulate the image, add things, and take things out. Though some manipulation is possible with film the magazine requires the negative so the photographer is unable to do so.

I have purchased a dslr and love it. I love that I can see the image right away, I do not have to buy or develop film, and do not have to worry about organizing all my physical pictures and negatives. The digital allows me to shoot good pictures on the fly even when I have my young son with me. With film the whole set up process is much more important. Either you get it or you don't. If I know I will have time to wait for lighting and set things up I will bring my film camera with me, if not I will shoot like mad with the digital and continue to learn about it.

I also understand why so many professional photographers use digital for many of these same reasons as well as the graphic art aspects.

For me there is times where digital makes more sense and times where film can still not be touched. Do your own test and draw your own conclusions.

If you haven't seen this magazine I encourage you to pick one up and look at the images that actually get in. They are simply amazing at any size.

The images online do not do the magazine justice, but this link takes you to a very small online portfolio.
http://www.arizonahighways.com/custom.cfm?name=photos.cfm&page=2&nav=photo

Hope to catch up to the rest of you one day. There is some fantastic images in your galleries.

Aaron

Awais Yaqub

Digital suits me . If there was no digital i was not in photography

thanks

System

The guys an idiot.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, the issue of image integrity comes into play. With the capability to easily alter images, how can we trust the legitimacy of a digital photograph? Beyond normal clean-up and basic image adjustments that must be made in the preparation of any digital file, opportunity exists for unscrupulous use of the technology. For Arizona Highways and many other publishers, image integrity is important. In the magazine, as well as in our books, full color film images help tell the story and the story must be accurate"

The answer here is so simple it bogglesmy mind to think just how poorly informed about digital photos he actually is. The .dng format with embedded raw original would put all fears to rest. Compare it to the retouched jpeg and voila! You know how much altering has been done.

Will the two medium co-exist? Sure, but not for long. Rest easy folks, digital is the only medium with a future. Here in Chicago almost all the large pro film processing operations have closed. If that's not a sign of the times I don't know what is.
[/FONT]

Nikolai

Truth,

truth wrote:

The guys an idiot...

I don't think the guy running one of the best (outdoor photography-wise) travel magazines in US deserves this name-calling. After all, he was doing it for a quite a while and is definitely entitled to his own opinion.

However, so are we. And your point that RAW files clear the issue of authenticity (maybe not in the court of law, but for this particular purpose) is definitely a one I second with my both hands

I think he was simply bombarded with tons of heavily articulated 3:4 jpegs from legions of excited P&S n00bs, hence his slight appalling with the whole digital issue...

Nikolai

Aaron,

anwmn1 wrote:

If you haven't seen this magazine I encourage you to pick one up and look at the images that actually get in. They are simply amazing at any size.

Thank for pitching in!

I agree that the magazine provides top notch work. However, it also makes me to think of the following.

It's a printed media. End product. No easy zooming to 1000%. Most of the pictures are quarter page, some are full page, and only a few are centerfolds. Which are about only 10"x15". Inches, not feet. So, let me ask you - why should I care how this image would look on the 20'x30' (ft) wall-size poster? Today's 6-8Mp dSLRs with a decent glass, operated by a knowledgeable person can easily produce stunning 20x30, if not 30x40. 10x15 - I was getting that from my Sony two generations back...
Yes, sure, if we consider properly scanned 4x5 transparency even with FF 12Mp image at full resolution, the first one wins - if printed on wall-size poster. But on 10x15, or 8x10, or 4x6... Well, call me naive, but I think we have long since graduated from this class...:):

pathfinder

The 1DsMkll has already passed 2 1/4 film in most opinions. The P45 backs will ultimately put 4x5 out to the woodshed also. Not this year maybe, but very soon.

Perhaps Arizona Highways does not digitize its images somewhere in its workflow, but most pre press work is on digitized images now, whether shot on film or sensor, so the distinction is really moot.

As Nik said, unless you see the images very large, you really cannot distinguish them. Folks who think they can, usually have only seen poor quality digital originals. I can distinquish poor quality film originals also.

devbobo

Hey Nik,

Can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree the truth on this

IMO, the underlying tones on the two articles are very different. The first one he basically says that digital is inferior, blah blah, etc. But in the second article it seems he does more than a little back peddling.

Cheers,

David

anwmn1

Nikolai,

It's a printed media. End product. No easy zooming to 1000%. Most of the pictures are quarter page, some are full page, and only a few are centerfolds. Which are about only 10"x15". Inches, not feet. So, let me ask you - why should I care how this image would look on the 20'x30' (ft) wall-size poster? Today's 6-8Mp dSLRs with a decent glass, operated by a knowledgeable person can easily produce stunning 20x30, if not 30x40. 10x15 - I was getting that from my Sony two generations back...
Yes, sure, if we consider properly scanned 4x5 transparency even with FF 12Mp image at full resolution, the first one wins - if printed on wall-size poster. But on 10x15, or 8x10, or 4x6... Well, call me naive, but I think we have long since graduated from this class...:):

Well let me start by saying I am an amatuer and new to digital, therefore when you guys talk technical it goes a little over my head. Being in Arizona I have been to Arizona Highways guest center, several artist shows, and other events where these artists as well as digital photographers are showing and selling there work.
IMO the large format was superior. Maybe the digital photographers were not that professional but I haven't physically seen anything 16 x 20 or bigger that compared. I would love to see some prints that large from some of the photogrpahers on this site.
As far as for most magazines and other print work I completely understand the move to digital. However, this magazine doesn't want to be like other print magazines. They want to have the most superior images out there. It is very difficult for even professional large format photographers to get published here. They have about 20 photographers that are also writers that are constantly competing for space. The magazine is monthly and maybe 50 pages so the competition is very tough. Maybe they are closed off to others, maybe they are elitists, I am not sure but, I haven't seen prints better than theirs.

I bought the dslr mostly to take good pictures at family events and on vacations without wasting film or waiting for lighting but I have been very impressed this far. The images here on dgrin and interactions like this keep me interested in taking digital a little further.

Nikolai

Hey David

devbobo wrote:

Hey Nik,

Can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree the truth on this

IMO, the underlying tones on the two articles are very different. The first one he basically says that digital is inferior, blah blah, etc. But in the second article it seems he does more than a little back peddling.

Cheers,

David

Long time no hear, how have you been?

I agree, the two articles are different in tone. And the guy is definitely an old school with established presence and workflow, I guess it's hard for him to turn on a dime and change everything to digital.
But he probably will, at least later. Sports Illustrated showed the way, the others will follow.
OTOH, maybe not. Some people still prefer vinyls and tube amps to mp3s and ipods :-)

Cheers, mate!

Nikolai

Aaron,
Thanks for the insight on AH, very interesting!

System

devbobo wrote:

Hey Nik,

Can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree the truth on this

IMO, the underlying tones on the two articles are very different. The first one he basically says that digital is inferior, blah blah, etc. But in the second article it seems he does more than a little back peddling.

Cheers,

David

Heh...should I change my name to heretic?

Awais Yaqub

If manupulation is problem then why on earth softwares which allow extensive menupulation are not blamed

Nikolai

Awais,

Awais Yaqub wrote:

If manupulation is problem then why on earth softwares which allow extensive menupulation are not blamed

I'd think that their request for authenticity is not holding any water with the RAW files, as Truth pointed out.

Resolution of the modern prosumer and pro dSLRs is also seem to be on par with what this regular sized magazine can print.

Their major point I guess is their investment in their current workflow. The rest is smoke and mirrors. And since, as Aaron pointed out, they have enough of highly competitive and skilled staff, they have no desire and no economical reason to change anything.

I guess they wake up only if some "California Backroads" or "Utah Trails" startup begins delivering same stunning quality imagery, but will be twice as cheap and twice as thick (due to the purely digital workflow), while being at the same time more responsive to the outside submissions. People are very sensitive when it comes to their wallets... :
And of course, it will be too late then...

ziggy53

I think it likely that Arizona Highways will phase in digital, starting with the smaller images.

I do think, as Nik already pointed out, that they have an established workflow and record of quality and success which they value, and which customers might miss.

Arizona Highways, National Geographic, Audubon, numerous museums, all have image standards, right or wrong, which they adhere to until a better way is proven. Change comes at a cost, as does lack of change.

I would be willing to bet that Jack Dykinga, LeRoy DeJolie, David Muench and other regular photographers of Arizona Highways, will help shape the future of the magazine, much more than we will. :

Just another humble opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

ziggy53