Dumb Question

Gotta wonder after viewing/reading all the responses to the Shootouts

and the great digital vs film debates...

 

1) if one is shooting strictly for the 'net, then what's the big

deal? 72dpi, etc, etc, ad infinitum... Wouldn't one rather use

digital?

 

2) if not... How many times have you "captured" a great shot with

your digital device and thought, damn...wish I'd have had my Leica

(or other film camera)...?

 

3) how many times (other than when scanning) have you thought--damn,

I wish I'd have been using my Digimatrix2004?

 

4) if exactly the same (35mm film) composition and exposure of

exactly the same scene were available---wouldn't you rather have been

shooting the M?

 

5) insert your own query here.....

 

Just a few random thots from a newbie as his 15-month-old daughter

spins and twirls to Emmylou....

(1) all less expensive and smaller in size digitals have very small matrices - therefore the image is drawn as if with an extreme wide angle (which ther lenses are, by the way), unpleasantly sharp through. Good-buy selective focus and beautiful boke.

<br>

(2) overesposed highs (whites) look beautiful and radiant on film. Behaviour of CCDs makes overexposed areas look ghastly, it's spoiled shots.

<br>

(3) There are no digitals on the market (although there are some in development) that are as wide as, say Tri-X.

 

<br> In other words, the picture is DRAWN DIFFERENTLY on film, and that cannot be changed the moment it has been created.

meaning good-bye, of course etc.

If you're saying the nuances of film transcend its inconvenience even for the web for #1, then we agree...

A test<div></div>

I have said this before: in my mind I fought the idea of digital imaging for may years, having toiled over toxic chemicals for 45 plus years in the darkroom trying to squeeze out acceptably consistent fine prints during a session.

 

My good friend, George Lauterstein, (now passed on), www.georgelauterstein.com, who also spent 45+ years toiling over toxic chemicals with Leica negatives, Turned me on to the joys of digital photography. (PS: Digital is not anti-Leica...I am convinced that Leica will eventually begin producing digital systems with Leica quality).

 

Used properly (with some researech in digital imaging and printing) you can produce images equal to, if not better, than darkroom prints with any good quality digital camera.

 

It seems that I can not convince many on the forum here of this, but when I began to take and print digital images in a serious and methodical way, with thought and planning, I discovered that I was getting prints that had the brillance, the sharpness, and the tonal "creaminess" of medium format, and a mellow (but stinging) contrast, with detail that I would expect in a larger format camera.

 

The photo above is a strictly tourist photo of the Sonoma Mission, but the natural lighting was extremely harsh and contrasty. I did absolutely no alterations to this photo, but the shadows under the porch have detail as does the pure white highlights of the building.

 

I could send a CD of this image to West Coast Imaging and get a beautiful 24X30 inch print made on traditional color photographic paper. If I increase my resolution to the max in my camera, I could easily get a 30x40 inch print.

 

I am just doing this with a simple 5.o mg P/S digital camera, but I am totally impressed with its potential.

 

I am amazed. What else can I say?<div></div>

I have used digital (4MP) for the last 3 years. It rekindled my interest in photography, let me experiment with countless ideas, immediately check on results, and so progress fast, several times faster than I'd be able with film.<br>

However - the shot of the mission illustrates the main disadvantage of the current generation of the dcameras: it is harsh and sharp through, very sharply drawn.<br>

I of course continue to shoot digital, but about 2 years ago began to move back to film, to rangefinders, both new and older lenses - because of the beauty, the different way they draw the image.<br>

Digital is: (a) sharp through (b) overexposed whites are ghastly - while on film they are beautifully brilliant and © digital is as narrow as slide film, generally speaking - as I stated above.<br>

Your shot illustrates the unappealing harshness of the way digital draws the image.

I like cars...new cars, old cars...almost all cars really. Don't like minivans so much, but hey, you can't love everything. I recently sold my Dodge Avenger. It wasn't a ferrari, but it was pretty nice for a 22 year old...leather seats, sun-roof, V6...it was reliable, dependable, never broke down. Put my foot on the gas, instant acceleration, anti-lock brakes kept me out of trouble. I used to have a 67 Camaro. Every week it would break down. I would spend hours in the garage taking it apart and putting it back together again to get it "just right" on a budget. It never really happened, and I eventually sold it. Now I have to buy a new car. If it's to go to work, I'll take that Avenger anyday. But if it's a car to enjoy life with...the Camaro beats it hands down. Do you get what I'm trying to allude to here? If I'm a pro wedding photographer, give me that D1x and let me go to town. It'll work great, faster, easier, and maybe, just maybe, better than the film variety. But if I'm taking pictures just to take pictures...get rid of the plastic, and the computers, and the wires all over the place (I rebuilt my chevy engine, but it took me ten minutes to find the distributor in my dodge)...just give me a nice metal box and let me play. And until digital cameras feel like that to me, I'm only interested in them for the internet/toy/have to use it for business factor. I have nothing against them...I just don't want to drive one on the weekend. forgive the rant...MDB

I don't see what's the point of trying to convince one way or the other. Right now, use whatever you like. Soon, film will be gone, no matter how much anyone argues it merits. It won't be gone because of anything other than the manufacturers will it to be gone, as digital provides them with more profits, and they've got more money for marketing than the film manufacturers--who are themselves preparing for the inevitable even as they milk as much as they can out of film as long as they can. When film is gone, we'll still have a choice, but it will be a different one: shoot digital or don't shoot.

Jay, when do you suppose that *soon* will be? (I'd be gratefful for some approximate estimate.)

My *prediction* is that by 2005, whichever current film emulsions have not been discontinued for lack of sales, will be available only at large full-service photo stores or on-line. Ditto for processing. Supermarkets, drugstores and discounters like Wal-Mart etc will no longer stock film or offer processing. By 2010 a small number of emulsions *may* still be manufactured and sold to die-hard film nostalgists (similar to black-powder shooters in the gun world) on-line/mailorder by cottage-industry suppliers who will also offer mail-order processing. The cost will at least $50 for a roll of 36-exp film including processing of the film but not scanning or printing. From there on one of 2 things will happen: either film will disappear completely, or there will be a discovery of film by artsy-type people who were born in the digital age and never had a chance to shoot film, and the cottage industry will get a reprieve. But the convenient, economical use of film will have ceased within 5-7 years from now.

Jay-

 

Have you taken into consideration that the vast majority of the planets population does not have the level of computer/electronic integration that the US, Europe and parts of Asia have? That's a market of something like 5 billion people.

 

feli

Jay, call me a Luddite. More and better films for a smaller and more dedicated clientele is my predicted result of the onslaught of digital. On Japanese 200 gram vinyl ;'/

<<Jay-

 

Have you taken into consideration that the vast majority of the planets population does not have the level of computer/electronic integration that the US, Europe and parts of Asia have? That's a market of something like 5 billion people.>>

 

You mean the ones who can't afford decent food, shelter or medical care or whose religious and/or cultural practices don't involve taking family pics or whose homelands are continually in political turmoil or war? Yeah, they buy lots of film.

<<Jay, call me a Luddite. More and better films for a smaller and more dedicated clientele is my predicted result of the onslaught of digital.>>

 

Ok, you're a Luddite. But replace the word "dedicated" with "wealthy" and maybe your scenario has a shot. Sure, if there is one person on earth willing to pay $500 for a roll of film, there'll be some guy in his basement willing to make it for him.

<em>"Digital is: (a) sharp through..."</em>

<p>

Digital point 'n' shoots have very small-format sensors, leading to huge depth of field. They also tend to over-sharpen in their in-camera processing. This isn't an issue with digital itself, the high-end digital SLRs don't suffer from the same limitations.

 

<p>

<em>More and better films...</em>

<p>

I think that film will continue to be produced for years to come, but I don't see anybody investing significant R&D dollars into it, so I can't see what basis there could possibly be for predicting "more and better", other than wishful thinking.

<p>

<em>Have you taken into consideration...</em>

<p>

5 billion people in the world don't have darkrooms, either, yet somehow they figure out how to get prints from their film cameras.

"You mean the ones who can't afford decent food, shelter or medical care or whose religious and/or cultural practices don't involve taking family pics or whose homelands are continually in political turmoil or war? Yeah, they buy lots of film."

 

Actually that doesn't describe any large part of the population anywhere in the world, at least no more than in the US. Too poor or uninterested to afford a new digital camera and all that requires but maybe going through a couple rolls of film each year on the other hand, describes most people, not just in Asia, Africa and South America, but Europe and North America too.

<i>Supermarkets, drugstores and discounters like Wal-Mart etc

will no longer stock film or offer processing</i><br><br>This

may be true in the long term but to think this will be true in 2005

is way off the mark. Even with a drop in sales of, say, 75%, film

will still be an enormous mass market item that any

supermarket will be happy to sell. Think about analogue audio

tapes. When was the last time that you used one to record

something? For me it was probably 10 years ago. Nowadays I

will use a CD. I suspect that this is the case for a lot of people

but I can still buy a pack of audio tapes from my local

supermarket (and not at some extortionate price either). Film will

continue to be a 'non-sexy' product bought in large volumes for

some to come.