Options
A Polite Discussion on the Relative Merits of Film and Digital Photography
Not sure where to post this (if at all), but here goes:
Back in the day (circa 15 years ago) I was a stereophile. At the time there were raging and heated internet debates about digital vs. analog -- depending on the forum, things could get amazingly nasty. The issue centered around the subtle (digies would say "nonexistent") superior sound quality of analog.
I don't see an analogous (no pun intended) debate with digital vs. film, and certainly wouldn't seek out meaningless flamefests on the subject. But I love this obsession of mine and am curious only for the sake of historical perspective: is it that digital has been more or less universally acknowledged as superior (lower cost per image, indiscernible quality difference in output), or do the two just co-exist better than in audio-land for whatever reason (higher average intellect, being the producer rather than the consumer, etc.)?
Back in the day (circa 15 years ago) I was a stereophile. At the time there were raging and heated internet debates about digital vs. analog -- depending on the forum, things could get amazingly nasty. The issue centered around the subtle (digies would say "nonexistent") superior sound quality of analog.
I don't see an analogous (no pun intended) debate with digital vs. film, and certainly wouldn't seek out meaningless flamefests on the subject. But I love this obsession of mine and am curious only for the sake of historical perspective: is it that digital has been more or less universally acknowledged as superior (lower cost per image, indiscernible quality difference in output), or do the two just co-exist better than in audio-land for whatever reason (higher average intellect, being the producer rather than the consumer, etc.)?
0
Comments
I also have digital cameras ranging from Fuji and Minolta digicams through several Canon dSLRs.
I absolutely "love" the quality and control I get staying digital from acquisition through processing and editing and into electronic publishing, printing and posting. I find the level of control staggering compared to film and don't miss at all things like dust on the film during exposure or printing. I don't miss the time and expense of processing film just to see if I might have messed up. Sending film to a pro lab for processing and printing was always a hassle and risk. Fixing scratches and "spots" was an art form, and the more you handled the film the more likely you were to have serious damage. Storing unexposed film was almost required just to have something on hand for that job that couldn't wait.
Usable film ISOs (ASAs) ranged from 25 through 400 until grain became a serious problem, expecially in smaller formats. "Push" exposure and processing was required too often and only really worked for B+W film. Color balance and ISO were restricted during a shoot to the particular film being used, and rolling 35mm film back into the canister to change mid-roll sometimes couldn't be avoided.
Except for medium format and large format film, I just don't perceive much need for the vast majority of shooters to use film anymore.
In 2004 I shot my last film wedding, and the cost was so prohibitive it inhibited my style considerably.
Switching to digital was an easy choice for my (then) employer as far back as 1995. It just took me a bit longer to afford my first "serious" digital camera, a Minolta DiMage A2 later in 2004, but i would never think of going back.
I tried film scanning for a short while, but it just doesn't make sense from a productivity perspective, and recently it makes no sense from a quality perpective as well. (Starting with 6 MP lower noise imagers, digital started to match scanned film.)
I'm afraid there is no longer any need for most folks in typical photography for film.
"The King (film) is dead. Long live the King (digital)."
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
with.
I experienced a similar process. It use to cost me $15 per 12 images shot using my hasselblad for film, processing, and proofs. Now I shoot 1000+ images at a wedding for nothing. No-brainer here.
As for film, it will continue I think forever for very small niche markets. Much like what happened to painting when photographs hit the fan in the early-mid 19th century. People didn't paint portraits anymore, but there are still painters who do it for the sake of art, experience, etc. I see film falling into that niche - in my opinion, it already has.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
During old days, every single piece of film is so expensive (compared to my income), so I had to carry a note book and checked and recorded all the settings and thought twice and may be many many times before press the shutter. In many cases, I missed the most valuable shoot. The worst case, the photo came out not exactly I want.
Sometimes, I did only one photo or 2 for a day and needed a month to finish a roll of 36 expose film.
Today, I like to do a test shoot, view it from the LCD, check the histogram then reset it again to get a perfect exposure, or just backet it. I spent more time on composition, catch the mood and making the photo to tell the story. I can do the rest of it in front of the PC at home later.
Space is another major consideration. I got 4 big boxes of old photo prints and tons of negative and slides. I brought it along everytime I moved the house and quarrelled with my wife where to keep my treasures. Today, I can take 5000 shoots in one trip and carry just a 600 gm portable harddisk. The four 500 GB hard disks just take up a corner of the shelf. Searching for the photo is another pain with films. For digital, just use a free software to organise it. Photos can come out either by date, or by themes.
Most important is the sharing of your work. For films, I need to print it out, mount it nicely, pay a lot to the professional lab and book a gallery to display it. For digital, just resize it and upload to 100 photo sites, send the link to your friends then talk on the photo to enjoy the conversation.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Just got the message from cnet.com:
"Just a couple of weeks back, Polaroid Corporation announced that it was closing down several of its factories that produce instant film. Well, I saw that coming but it still had an impact on me. For those who started photography with film, we know that in those days Polaroid was equivalent to viewing pictures on an LCD screen today. Seven years ago, when I was a photographer's assistant, digital photography was just emerging on the market and the use of Polaroid was still common. Snap, pull out the instant film, wait for it to dry, and then peel off the processing layer. Then we'd all crowd around to see what could be improved. These days, we'll all look at the computer screen and there is nothing tangible to hold in our hands. Now that it is gone, I'll miss Polaroid, and will hold those on my wall even more dearly. "
When is the turn of "film"???????????
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Film's not going anywhere, photoskipper. Yep, Polaroid gave up on the one product line as that paticular one has become such a niche it can't be profitable any more. However, there are enough film supporters that some of the older emulsions are being brought back. Again, look at how busy apug is.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I've never shot film as I was never remotely interested in photography before the travel got serious (around 2001 with the original Elph/Ixus). But sometimes I do think "should I give film a chance"? Now, here's something that's been nagging me recently:
If I have a film SLR and shoot a contrasty scene as I would with my DSLR (i.e. use spot metering and meter off the brightest highlight I want to save) and scan the final image to TIFF, would I get the same latitude for bringing back shadow colour and detail as I do with a digital RAW file? Or is that something I would need to handle with the chemicals and stuff at the development stage (something I know nothing about and probably never will)?
Color negative film still has a latitude advantage over digital "only" if you intend to print using traditional optical print processes. The minute you digitize the film image you run into other problems that tend to neutralize any advantage.
In large format there is still an advantage to digitized film images, but at 35mm format I do not recommend it.
A moderate HDR is probably a more practical method for gaining more dynamic range.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
Due to the relationship of DGRIN with the digital image hosting site SMUGMUG ... most who use DGRIN are digital. There are other photo forums where, similar to your audio example, there are lines drawn in the sand between digital and film ... where film is still warm and breathing and digital hasn't received full allegiance from the populace.
The future is digital and if you are a photographer you can either go digital now or later ... but you will go digital.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I was one of those guys until about 5 years ago. I was so comfortable with how I was working. I loved my hasselblad, I printed my own stuff, and life was good. I saw digital as a disruption to my comfort zone - until I bought my first digital camera (Fuji S7000). I went through a complete transformation. Within 6 months my beautiful Hassy was collecting dust.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
http://www.flickr.com/gp/8942780@N03/22a538 <-- D1h files
I have both medium format and large format film in my deep freezer right now, just waiting for an opportunity. I still love several of my film cameras, just don't use them much anymore and never will again.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Just look at the portion of folks shooting with film now and the boom of digital photography/camera and sites like smugmug.
Michael Muller a famous photographer said people ask him if his stuff was shot with film or digital (he uses a Canon 1DsMII), his response is what does it matter?
If the image is good, then it's good, I don't think the format/medium is that big of a deal as is composition, lighting, timing, exposure, and control of colors.
One thing about digital is that feedback is immediate and it costs next to nothing to experiment that folks are more willing to experiment and try new and different things, which I think is good.
However, beyond the general photography market (as Ziggy qualified in his posts), I would add that black and white film, even in the 35mm format, can produce superior images and grain than digital conversion to black and white. This is especially true for some photojournalists. James Nachtwey still shoots black and white film on assignment when time is not a critical factor. And there are still some other leading famous photojournalists/documentary photogs who still shoot film on the side, or have gone back to black and white film exclusively (such as the amazing [SIZE=-1]Chien-Chi Chang[/SIZE]). And of course, large format film has its own special place as Ziggy mentioned (like Alec Soth's 8x10 work or many other fine art photogs).
While I now shoot digital, I'm currently looking for a good 35mm rangefinder to shoot some documentary/fine art stuff with black and white film again ... especially in low light. I just cannot quite achieve the specific look I want with digital but it's very, very close. And maybe I still miss seeing that image start to come up in the developer tray.
It isn't a debate anymore about what is "better," it's more about what you want to achieve and what the best tool is ... well really i guess this was always what it's about
The latitude advantage of color neg will exist only until sensor technology advances a little further. I find it hard to believe that 10 years from how we won't have sensors that completely outperform film in all respects including exposure latitude. Already we have readily available camera sensors that produce clean images at ISO speed ratings unheard of for film.
Film won't ever die, though. Film is about as dead as oil painting and letterpress, and those analogies are instructive. Nobody would choose to use oil painting or letterpress in a fast production environment, but if you aren't in that environment and oil painting or letterpress is exactly what you want, nothing digital will do. And that's how it will be with film from now on.
Those who shot film primarily fall into a couple of catergories
1. Have shot film for years and love it (could be a hobby or business)
2. Are comfortable with film and camera (maybe uncomfortable with digital and or computer)
3. Don't have access to digital or computers (3rd world countries, low income, etc)
Those who shot digital primarily also fall into a couple of categories
1. Have tried both and enjoy convience of digital (cost, time to see result)
2. It makes better business sense (workflow, cost, time, archiveable, etc)
3. Youth that are comfortable with computers
So for major industrialized nations in say the next decade I dare say that few children or young adults will ever shoot film. I mean how many teenagers have records, or tapes, or a vcr.
Film won't die, but it will become obsolete if it hasn't already. Some will continue to use it, but mostly for personal enjoyment (hobby).
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Thanks and carry on.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
I would never suggest that film is dead anymore than I'd say that the clavichord and harpsichord died with the invention of the pianoforte (piano for most of you). Yes, I'm a pianist.
Film didn't die, but for me it sure can't be found anywhere.
Not meant to be a bash, flame, or anything, just a statement. I've seen a lot of very heated debate over it in many fora. For a while it seemed like I couldn't get away from them short of going offline entirely. No offense intended. I myself am now sitting on the fence and prefer the sort of discussion in this thread over the blindered flamefests I've seen so often.
Anyway, back to the discussion. For those of use able to look objectively at both media, ignoring time constraints (digital wins there hands down), it gets more into the feel of the image. A film B&W image has a feel digital cannot reproduce at this time--if that's what you are after only film will do.
One odd thing I found was that after going digital I got all the basics nailed quickly and now shoot film better than ever.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
This one may not be true any more.
With film, it's:
1) Pay for camera and film
2) Pay for processing and prints at a kiosk
3) Pay for film (again) and shoot more pictures
With digital, it's:
1) Pay for camera and card
2) Pay for prints at a kiosk that can do minor edits
3) Shoot more pictures
Only the serious shooters need a computer for extensive retouching.
Digital P&S are now as cheap as film ones were, and more available. Once the infrastructure is in place (a village store owner buys a digital minilab), digital is cheaper for snapshot shooters. This is how cell phones spread so rapidly through developing countries: It was far cheaper to start up and operate the newer, higher technology than the older technology that required laying analog cable everywhere.
While the cost of cameras and media is in fact going down ... the entry cost for serious digital photography (computer, camera, optional printer, software ... which is rising), is somewhere around an arm an'a leg. Entry level for serious film photography is within the reach of significantly so many many more peoples worldwide than digital. It is easier to swallow the on-going costs of film and development than the high, one-time cost of digital for peoples that don't have a lot of disposable income.
Gary
(a comparison of similar equipment, apples to apples ... dSLR's to SLR's, P&S's to film Fixed Lens cameras)
Unsharp at any Speed
I have now converted to Digital and put the Bronica away. I still get it out to look at it and consider using it, but I don't.
The only thing that bothers me is this. I have boxes and boxes of photos dating back to the 1930's. Pictures taken of and by relatives long gone. But I still have those photos. They are priceless to me and my family. I just don't have the same confidence in the digital format for longevity. Hence, I print out many pictures and store them as prints. Because it is so cheap to take pictures I spend a lot of $$ on paper and ink printing out lots of 8x10s and 13x19s I wory about the archive situation as far as digital goes. It is it's soft spot.
http://jgdesigns.smugmug.com/
That's one of the things I love about digital. Mt oldest daughter is about 2 hours away at college, my middle daughter is about 45 minutes away and my son is a Marine serving overseas. I can share digital images with any or all of them instantly. I post many of the images I shoot in SmugMug galleries, where they are backed up much more regularly than I ever would. The images I do back up are on either CD or DVD, and those are shareable by copying.
If any of those technologies go away or go awry I generally have some warning or inkling and I can double up on another method for backup.
On the other hand, much of the film negatives and slides I shot are lost to mildew (basement storage, my bad) or age (color negative film is not all that stable, even stored in the best of conditions) or other types of damage or loss (printed images I loaned to my kids to share with their mother, my ex-wife, will never be seen again. I now only give them "copies" of some sort.)
Digital just makes my like so much easier for sharing and archiving.
I will grant that inkjet prints are not that durable, except for some "chrome" based inks, but prints from silver based processes are just as durable regardless of film or digital origin.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
He states Epson's new dye based inkjets having 98yr's behind glass and 200 years in an album to about 30 years from a lab print.
A couple more thoughts:
After years of hand developing b+w film and hovering over trays to make prints, I've become so sensitized to the chemistry that I can no longer be around it. Add to that my adult asthma and it is effectively impossible for me to work in or around a darkroom.
Also worth considering is the environmental impact of chemical photography in terms of both pollutants added to the environment and water required for wet processes.
Jake: Hit it.
http://www.sissonphotography.com
www.flickr.com/photos/sissonphotography
http://sissonphotography.blogspot.com/
This was about 5 years ago, when the D60 was relative new, and I found a 1v on the cheap (mmmm... shiny 1 series Canon with sexy viewfinder) so I bought it and took a film course at the local community college. Traditional black and white, standard Tri-X 400 + RC paper stuff. I thought after hearing that black & white could capture 14 stops of light versus digital's ~6 that I was going to get these beautiful, silky grey tone gradation prints. And I found that my 35 mm stuff blown up to 8x10 was really grainy. Also, getting those stops out of it was a combination of exposure (in camera) and work in the darkroom. And in the end there was no way I was getting prints as good as I could with digital. Now sure, with a couple more years of experience and better film (better being less grain if I wanted), and fiber paper, I could have gotten much better stuff. But digital and print technologies are such that 35mm film was definitely not BETTER than my D60... and that is dinosaur-era technology. Still, I want to go shoot some Velvia on the 1v as I've never had that experience. I figure it will be beautiful, but probably again not as good as it's romanticized to be. There's one way to find out... and I *do* have a scanner so... whenever I get off my duff. The 1D Mark II is just so much more approachable.
Film will have a place for as long as people attach good memories to it. That set will eventually die off and I don't think it will be actually technically better for anything but nostalgic purposes.