Some more to share
Talking about old days again.
I used to be freelance photographer for some wedding dinners. In 70s and 80s, many people like to be in the photo as not many of them have camera for themself.
I needed to carry 3 camera bodies -
1. one for wide angle with standard ISO 100 film
2. one for portrait
3. the third one was empty (no film).
The whole night used only 3 -4 rolls of film, per request by the host. As they needed to pay extra for any rolls and prints.
In order to save the film and print, I used most of the empty camera to "entertain" the request.
Today, I have no problem to shoot whatever needed. Easily 400 to 500 photos a night and dump it in a DVD for the host to use. Sometimes, even put on a slide show before the dinner end. I can collect the full payment within 15 minutes after the job, not like old day, needed to wait till the host happy with the photo 2 weeks later.
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.
Each method of storage has it's pros and cons. I didn't get into the photography until the digital age, but I think digital storage is easier and more full proof. I put my favorite pics on smugmug and it's my offsite backup. I have an external HD that backs up my photo directory every night. I have been around the computer industry long enough to know new storage media does change, but not quick enough to make what's been used for 10+ years obsolete or incompatible. There will be time to transfer from one format to another. It's just easier to make backups. The quality of the image will not degrade in time either. Of course, it can't get better unlike film if new scanner technology comes along, but then there may be new programs that can better enhance digital.
Also, at the end of each year, I will take my best photos and make a hardback book instead of making prints. It's easier on storage and they make great gifts as my brother loves his year end fishing book I give as a birthday present. I made a 160 page book using blurb for around $40. I spent a lot of time on layout and making captions, but if you want full page pics, it's easy to just drag and drop and doesn't take too much time.
Unless you print out duplicates and store a set offsite, you are setting yourself up for losing all your photos. I live in a region on the Gulf Coast that we can lose everything due to hurricanes. Physical storage like photos and negatives will degrade over time unless they are stored in ideal circumstances. If you are comfortable with your method, that's fine. I just know if I had priceless photos, I would get them digitized and stored in more than one place. While my opinion is obviously biased towards digital, I think it's storage is more future proof than film in regards to longevity as it's easier and can be more automated.
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.
I'm in the same boat ... I've just gotten too sensitive to the processing chemicals ... used to paint with oils as well, can't go near the stuff nowadays.
a long time ago I used to process my BW films ... i dont do it anymore just because i don t have enough place for a darkroom
a few time ago i used to shoot in digital, I m not a professional... i used point and shoot (it is perfect for my pocket), Dslr...
now i shoot film why?
just because i like to take ...
- care of what i shoot, it takes time, it is expensive so when i take a picture I'm sure i want to take it.
- time, time to wait for your film, surprise of what you get (what to say if you are using Diana or Holga....) , time to scan. pleasure to do more or less nothing whith Photoshop (just a little bit of curves sometimes).
I think that, if you are not a preofessional, the most important thing is what you find about yourself in taking pictures.
for me I stop the fury and take a rest. I feel really happy whith all these times - out of time. for that the polaroid is totally magic.
but of course if i was professional, that should be different
I got my first SLR (a used OM-1) in 1984. Apart from being able to make a correct exposure, I knew nothing about photography. It tried different films and had a couple cameras but was essentially a dilettante. I carried this same knowledge through to the year I felt I'd had it with the cost and effort of film, around, 2002. I got my first DSLR in 2006. It was the same month I started to take an interest in the creative side and felt I should learn my craft. Digital was the ruling technology that presided over me getting excited about making photographs and I think that matters a lot. If I had done the same in 1984, I might be still clutching on to film—who knows. I think in art it's important not to fall too in love with the medium.
I hardly can understand a discussion of this kind today. I don't get why it would trouble anybody anymore. I last used my Canon Elan II maybe 2 years ago, for about an hour.
I am totally in love with all of these responses, thoughts and sentiments.
Many before me have covered parts of my thoughts and usage too of digital convenience.
Some may say it changed a lot, but It is interesting how little film technology changed over the course of the last fifty years, or even longer(?).
Now that digital has arrived.
How much change is ahead?
I wonder if or when SLR will be obsoleted because digital viewing is better?
How quickly will the Megapixel be supplanted by the Gigapixel or Terapixel?
When will 3D photos come into vogue?
Or holographic results?
We have a lot of things to look forward to while enjoying our past.
One vignette:
I was recently given a trunk full of my Moms older photos. I took each one and ran them through the scanner and now have them safely in three back-up systems. I then only kept the very rare and oldest of the photos and put them safely away in physical storage, for my children. I put together a book for my mom for Christmas with these photos. I have a gallery for family that they can come and visit whenever they wish.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
I've been at the heart of that old chestnut for YEARS. I've never before seen so much pseudo-science, invalid testing, over-emotional responses, illegitimate guidance and pure drivel spouted on both sides. Film vs digital is way more civil and professional as arguments go.
I grew up surrounded by photography. Whether it was in the darkroom as a child at the print shop where my mom was working at the time, or later with SLRs. I even taught my middle school journalism teacher how to develop negatives. I really enjoyed photography as a hobby.
The last film SLR I had (well, still have if dig it up out of the closet) was an EOS Elan. Expensive camera for me at the time, but I enjoyed it for a couple of years before it just became too much hassle relative to P&S.
Fast forward to about 1.5 years ago when my oldest son was about to start playing football. I really wanted a good lens so I could have decent pictures of him besides the - well, you know what you get from P&S at a football game :-)
I decided to get the lens I'd been lusting after for years... 70-200/2.8L IS. Once I made that decision, I realized I didn't want the hassle of film and it was time to get a digital SLR.
Holy cow has my 40D re-lit my love affair with photography! I completely underestimated how valuable having the EXIF data embedded in the image would be and how much more/faster I'd be able to learn. I *love* the freedom to experiment and try new things.
Long boring story for most, but that's an idea of what digital has done for me. I've got a new addiction all over again.
In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.
But in photography, this isn't the case. Film too was 'digital' in that it wasn't continuous ala analog, but the siliver particles, though fine, were 'digital'. There was some loss of the image on film compared to reality. In digital photography today (the electronic sensor kind), it is just that electronic sensors have exceeded film's resolution.
Anyway, I learned photography in high school shooting for the school publications (newspaper, yearbook, etc). We shot black and white, and also built a darkroom to process our own film and prints. We bought film in bulk, rolling our own 35mm canisters. Because of this, we were able to shoot rather freely, experiment, and try new things. Each shot was pennies a piece (if that much), and we could shoot several rolls at each event without worry of cost. We would see, within a few hours, the results of our efforts, and learn from them. It was here that I got my love of photography and learned, thru practice, how to compose and manage exposure. I think it helped tremendously that I had a manual OM-1n.
Now, if I were not associated with the school, shooting as much as I liked and experimenting, I am not sure I would have learned as much or as quickly on my own. Processing film at the drugstore is rather expensive, and the long lag does not really lead to as much of a learning experience.
It is here that I think modern digital photography excels: the instant learning from each shot, ability to instantly process in the 'darkroom' and learn composure and exposure. The ability to shoot unlimited images, without worry of cost. This has helped many who otherwise would have just bought a slr to benefit from better looking snapshots.
If anything, I would love to see a 'manual' dslr, one that provides for very easy control over speed and aperture. Then one can really learn, without the "training wheel' modes of Tv. and Av. to get in the way. I miss the aperture ring around the lens every day! Please, someone, please bring back the aperture ring!!!
In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.
I think in some ways film-digital analog-digital are similar, but agree that the comparison isn't 100% true in actual technical terms.
Recording in lossless wav format is similar to RAW in digital, so make of that what you will. From very firsthand experience I can say that the microphones and preamps now available (frqeuently designed for digital recording) allow for a greater dynamic range than was available when everything was analog. As a large-voiced singer, I have struggled my entire career against microphony/preamp distortion, both recorded professionally by others (and not fly-by-night, but places such as the BBC!) and by myself. The cost has come WAY down, too: I have a portable rig - not much bigger than an ipod - which can capture pretty close to studio-quality sound which I compiled for less than $1k (and that's with high end mics - before I upgraded, the rig was under $500 all in). Even 20 years ago this kind of sound required a dedicated, professionally-trained engineer and a roomful of high-end pro equipment to achieve and now even a "point and shoot" recorder can make good captures if you have a little recording skill to back it up. An almost direct parallel to photography.
Again similar to photography, it's possible to get fabulous recordings "straight out of the can", but there is also more (and more easily achieved) manipulation possible in post production - it's much easier to sit at a computer and move sliders than it is to splice actual tape, just as it's easier to move sliders in Photoshop than it is to go into a chemical darkroom. The downside of this is that clueless people can seem to exceed their actual skills by relying on post--production (in both disciplines), but in the hands of skilled engineers (photographers) the digital studio (darkroom) can allow for artistically and technically excellent final products.
Back to the main topic of film vs digital...
For me personally, digital shooting has made ALL the difference in my finally learning how to be a *photographer* instead of merely "taking pictures". I loved my 35mm camera(s) and managed to acquire some very basic skills over the years, learned a fair bit about composition and found an eye for the styles I *liked*, but I never really felt like I was in control of the camera enough to be able to achieve those shots and styles. I don't think I turned the dial to "M" until about a month ago, relying almost exclusively on apertur priority. I'm still at the very bottom of the learning curve, but with the freedom to shoot utter GARBAGE at 0 cost for the last few months - thus learning what doesn't work in my quest to learn what does - I actually feel like I'm starting to have a clue. I'm not there yet by any means, but at least I'm starting to parse what I see in others' photos instead of merely thinking "Wow - how did they DO that?!", and am increasingly able to apply things to my own shots in situ, on the fly and have some idea what the result will be.
So, in short ("short"... after this many words?! :giggle), I think that film (as analog recording) DOES impart a unique quality to the final product, but for me personally it's digital all the way. Greater control over the final product without needing extra space and equipment and absolute freedom to shoot freely without worrying about the final cost. I can experiment, and thus can learn by doing. It works for me!
In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.
Not quite. CD-quality digital audio (44.1kHz or 48kHz, 16-bit) audio is not compressed and does not lose anything. There is no loss in a PCM encoding system that contains ample bit depth for dynamic range and a high enough sample rate (double the Nyquist frequency) to reproduce your highest frequencies. Analog recording technology was rife with problems of all sorts, let alone the problem of generation loss due to duplication. Just look at LP mastering, which had to roll off the low end (the RIAA curve) only to have to brought back by a reciprocal EQ circuit on the back end otherwise the needle would jump the groove. Every aspect of analog sound reproduction was a compromise, the sonic ideals always out of reach, just as in any digital system. If you thing the process of cutting a record is not unlike development and printing in a wet darkroom, you're right. There are loads of parallels.
For me personally, digital shooting has made ALL the difference in my finally learning how to be a *photographer* instead of merely "taking pictures". I loved my 35mm camera(s) and managed to acquire some very basic skills over the years, learned a fair bit about composition and found an eye for the styles I *liked*, but I never really felt like I was in control of the camera enough to be able to achieve those shots and styles. I don't think I turned the dial to "M" until about a month ago, relying almost exclusively on apertur priority. I'm still at the very bottom of the learning curve, but with the freedom to shoot utter GARBAGE at 0 cost for the last few months - thus learning what doesn't work in my quest to learn what does - I actually feel like I'm starting to have a clue. I'm not there yet by any means, but at least I'm starting to parse what I see in others' photos instead of merely thinking "Wow - how did they DO that?!", and am increasingly able to apply things to my own shots in situ, on the fly and have some idea what the result will be.
So, in short ("short"... after this many words?! :giggle), I think that film (as analog recording) DOES impart a unique quality to the final product, but for me personally it's digital all the way. Greater control over the final product without needing extra space and equipment and absolute freedom to shoot freely without worrying about the final cost. I can experiment, and thus can learn by doing. It works for me!
Bingo! I was the OP here 11 months ago, early on in my (continuing) addiction to this art (and thanks to all of you for extending the average half-life of my threads beyond one day ). My take-away on all the discussion so far is that while film may be superior in the narrow context in which one is seeking a very specific film "effect", there is no vocal constituency arguing that film is better across-the-board (unlike Audio). More importantly, the post-capture manipulability of digital images cannot be duplicated with film, and MOST importantly, the $0.00 cost of each incremental digital capture is absolutely compelling.
This is D(igital)Grin, after all, so there's nobody here that needs persuading, but there's nothing wrong with stretching our minds once in a while. Thanks, everyone, for a very interesting discussion so far . . .
Comments
Talking about old days again.
I used to be freelance photographer for some wedding dinners. In 70s and 80s, many people like to be in the photo as not many of them have camera for themself.
I needed to carry 3 camera bodies -
1. one for wide angle with standard ISO 100 film
2. one for portrait
3. the third one was empty (no film).
The whole night used only 3 -4 rolls of film, per request by the host. As they needed to pay extra for any rolls and prints.
In order to save the film and print, I used most of the empty camera to "entertain" the request.
Today, I have no problem to shoot whatever needed. Easily 400 to 500 photos a night and dump it in a DVD for the host to use. Sometimes, even put on a slide show before the dinner end. I can collect the full payment within 15 minutes after the job, not like old day, needed to wait till the host happy with the photo 2 weeks later.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Each method of storage has it's pros and cons. I didn't get into the photography until the digital age, but I think digital storage is easier and more full proof. I put my favorite pics on smugmug and it's my offsite backup. I have an external HD that backs up my photo directory every night. I have been around the computer industry long enough to know new storage media does change, but not quick enough to make what's been used for 10+ years obsolete or incompatible. There will be time to transfer from one format to another. It's just easier to make backups. The quality of the image will not degrade in time either. Of course, it can't get better unlike film if new scanner technology comes along, but then there may be new programs that can better enhance digital.
Also, at the end of each year, I will take my best photos and make a hardback book instead of making prints. It's easier on storage and they make great gifts as my brother loves his year end fishing book I give as a birthday present. I made a 160 page book using blurb for around $40. I spent a lot of time on layout and making captions, but if you want full page pics, it's easy to just drag and drop and doesn't take too much time.
Unless you print out duplicates and store a set offsite, you are setting yourself up for losing all your photos. I live in a region on the Gulf Coast that we can lose everything due to hurricanes. Physical storage like photos and negatives will degrade over time unless they are stored in ideal circumstances. If you are comfortable with your method, that's fine. I just know if I had priceless photos, I would get them digitized and stored in more than one place. While my opinion is obviously biased towards digital, I think it's storage is more future proof than film in regards to longevity as it's easier and can be more automated.
I'm in the same boat ... I've just gotten too sensitive to the processing chemicals ... used to paint with oils as well, can't go near the stuff nowadays.
www.fastcatstudio.com
www.fastcatstudio.net - blog
a few time ago i used to shoot in digital, I m not a professional... i used point and shoot (it is perfect for my pocket), Dslr...
now i shoot film why?
just because i like to take ...
- care of what i shoot, it takes time, it is expensive so when i take a picture I'm sure i want to take it.
- time, time to wait for your film, surprise of what you get (what to say if you are using Diana or Holga....) , time to scan. pleasure to do more or less nothing whith Photoshop (just a little bit of curves sometimes).
I think that, if you are not a preofessional, the most important thing is what you find about yourself in taking pictures.
for me I stop the fury and take a rest. I feel really happy whith all these times - out of time
but of course if i was professional, that should be different
I hardly can understand a discussion of this kind today. I don't get why it would trouble anybody anymore. I last used my Canon Elan II maybe 2 years ago, for about an hour.
Many before me have covered parts of my thoughts and usage too of digital convenience.
Some may say it changed a lot, but It is interesting how little film technology changed over the course of the last fifty years, or even longer(?).
Now that digital has arrived.
How much change is ahead?
I wonder if or when SLR will be obsoleted because digital viewing is better?
How quickly will the Megapixel be supplanted by the Gigapixel or Terapixel?
When will 3D photos come into vogue?
Or holographic results?
We have a lot of things to look forward to while enjoying our past.
One vignette:
I was recently given a trunk full of my Moms older photos. I took each one and ran them through the scanner and now have them safely in three back-up systems. I then only kept the very rare and oldest of the photos and put them safely away in physical storage, for my children. I put together a book for my mom for Christmas with these photos. I have a gallery for family that they can come and visit whenever they wish.
cheers, tom
Here is your terapixel camera: link
www.tednghiem.com
― Edward Weston
I've been at the heart of that old chestnut for YEARS. I've never before seen so much pseudo-science, invalid testing, over-emotional responses, illegitimate guidance and pure drivel spouted on both sides. Film vs digital is way more civil and professional as arguments go.
The last film SLR I had (well, still have if dig it up out of the closet) was an EOS Elan. Expensive camera for me at the time, but I enjoyed it for a couple of years before it just became too much hassle relative to P&S.
Fast forward to about 1.5 years ago when my oldest son was about to start playing football. I really wanted a good lens so I could have decent pictures of him besides the - well, you know what you get from P&S at a football game :-)
I decided to get the lens I'd been lusting after for years... 70-200/2.8L IS. Once I made that decision, I realized I didn't want the hassle of film and it was time to get a digital SLR.
Holy cow has my 40D re-lit my love affair with photography!
Long boring story for most, but that's an idea of what digital has done for me. I've got a new addiction all over again.
Jay
It even has a Duck on it! Wow!
And heres a link to a terapixel Image: http://www.aperio.com/newsevents/BigTiffPR0507.asp
thanks, tom
But in photography, this isn't the case. Film too was 'digital' in that it wasn't continuous ala analog, but the siliver particles, though fine, were 'digital'. There was some loss of the image on film compared to reality. In digital photography today (the electronic sensor kind), it is just that electronic sensors have exceeded film's resolution.
Anyway, I learned photography in high school shooting for the school publications (newspaper, yearbook, etc). We shot black and white, and also built a darkroom to process our own film and prints. We bought film in bulk, rolling our own 35mm canisters. Because of this, we were able to shoot rather freely, experiment, and try new things. Each shot was pennies a piece (if that much), and we could shoot several rolls at each event without worry of cost. We would see, within a few hours, the results of our efforts, and learn from them. It was here that I got my love of photography and learned, thru practice, how to compose and manage exposure. I think it helped tremendously that I had a manual OM-1n.
Now, if I were not associated with the school, shooting as much as I liked and experimenting, I am not sure I would have learned as much or as quickly on my own. Processing film at the drugstore is rather expensive, and the long lag does not really lead to as much of a learning experience.
It is here that I think modern digital photography excels: the instant learning from each shot, ability to instantly process in the 'darkroom' and learn composure and exposure. The ability to shoot unlimited images, without worry of cost. This has helped many who otherwise would have just bought a slr to benefit from better looking snapshots.
If anything, I would love to see a 'manual' dslr, one that provides for very easy control over speed and aperture. Then one can really learn, without the "training wheel' modes of Tv. and Av. to get in the way. I miss the aperture ring around the lens every day! Please, someone, please bring back the aperture ring!!!
I think in some ways film-digital analog-digital are similar, but agree that the comparison isn't 100% true in actual technical terms.
Recording in lossless wav format is similar to RAW in digital, so make of that what you will. From very firsthand experience I can say that the microphones and preamps now available (frqeuently designed for digital recording) allow for a greater dynamic range than was available when everything was analog. As a large-voiced singer, I have struggled my entire career against microphony/preamp distortion, both recorded professionally by others (and not fly-by-night, but places such as the BBC!) and by myself. The cost has come WAY down, too: I have a portable rig - not much bigger than an ipod - which can capture pretty close to studio-quality sound which I compiled for less than $1k (and that's with high end mics - before I upgraded, the rig was under $500 all in). Even 20 years ago this kind of sound required a dedicated, professionally-trained engineer and a roomful of high-end pro equipment to achieve and now even a "point and shoot" recorder can make good captures if you have a little recording skill to back it up. An almost direct parallel to photography.
Again similar to photography, it's possible to get fabulous recordings "straight out of the can", but there is also more (and more easily achieved) manipulation possible in post production - it's much easier to sit at a computer and move sliders than it is to splice actual tape, just as it's easier to move sliders in Photoshop than it is to go into a chemical darkroom. The downside of this is that clueless people can seem to exceed their actual skills by relying on post--production (in both disciplines), but in the hands of skilled engineers (photographers) the digital studio (darkroom) can allow for artistically and technically excellent final products.
Back to the main topic of film vs digital...
For me personally, digital shooting has made ALL the difference in my finally learning how to be a *photographer* instead of merely "taking pictures". I loved my 35mm camera(s) and managed to acquire some very basic skills over the years, learned a fair bit about composition and found an eye for the styles I *liked*, but I never really felt like I was in control of the camera enough to be able to achieve those shots and styles. I don't think I turned the dial to "M" until about a month ago, relying almost exclusively on apertur priority. I'm still at the very bottom of the learning curve, but with the freedom to shoot utter GARBAGE at 0 cost for the last few months - thus learning what doesn't work in my quest to learn what does - I actually feel like I'm starting to have a clue. I'm not there yet by any means, but at least I'm starting to parse what I see in others' photos instead of merely thinking "Wow - how did they DO that?!", and am increasingly able to apply things to my own shots in situ, on the fly and have some idea what the result will be.
So, in short ("short"... after this many words?! :giggle), I think that film (as analog recording) DOES impart a unique quality to the final product, but for me personally it's digital all the way. Greater control over the final product without needing extra space and equipment and absolute freedom to shoot freely without worrying about the final cost. I can experiment, and thus can learn by doing. It works for me!
Not quite. CD-quality digital audio (44.1kHz or 48kHz, 16-bit) audio is not compressed and does not lose anything. There is no loss in a PCM encoding system that contains ample bit depth for dynamic range and a high enough sample rate (double the Nyquist frequency) to reproduce your highest frequencies. Analog recording technology was rife with problems of all sorts, let alone the problem of generation loss due to duplication. Just look at LP mastering, which had to roll off the low end (the RIAA curve) only to have to brought back by a reciprocal EQ circuit on the back end otherwise the needle would jump the groove. Every aspect of analog sound reproduction was a compromise, the sonic ideals always out of reach, just as in any digital system. If you thing the process of cutting a record is not unlike development and printing in a wet darkroom, you're right. There are loads of parallels.
I do miss the sound of a good 1/2" master.
This is D(igital)Grin, after all, so there's nobody here that needs persuading, but there's nothing wrong with stretching our minds once in a while. Thanks, everyone, for a very interesting discussion so far . . .
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com