What this Digital vs. Film thing is really about...

Thanks, Barry, for making me feel REALLY, REALLY old...I have no opinion on Joni Mitchell, OTOH I don't know who these Kaiser guys are, ...actually, I like early Sinatra ... mind , early Sinatra and Digital go together quite nicely ... ;-))

Joni Mitchell is God. Sinatra is Satan. Kaiser Chiefs are some kind of Beelzebub's hand maidens. All other opinions are worthless. IMHO...

"What this Digital vs. Film thing is really about..." It's about silliness! Both enable a photographer to fulfil his/her vision. Salgado seems to do quite nicely with film while many other geniuss fly above the clouds with digital. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever!

As I've noted recently in other threads, this is an issue that affects photography's position as an art form. That is to say, it's not limited solely to how photographers view their work as a group. If you're submitting your work to a gallery where it will be compared to watercolors, oils, drawings, etc., you discover that the process seems to be significant, if not all important. It's the HOW, rather than the WHAT or the WHY.

 

And all this time I thought it was about the artist's vision (presented on media that was reasonably archival.)

No, it is essentially about making the big bucks. It is about manufacturing and marketing and selling to the largest number of people. It is about profit.

The film vs digital debate is about people getting caught up in the gear manufacturer's advertising campaigns, whether those campaigns are going on today, or were going on in the past. On the film side it's worrying that years of time and effort with somehow become obsolete by the introduction of new technology. On the digital side it's worrying that $10000 worth of digital gear may not be as good as $500 worth of film gear. On both sides it's worrying that it may really be true that good photography doesn't have so much to do with the gear, as it does with the mind and skill and effort of the photographer.

 

Another issue is the common perception that "What works for me should work for everybody else!" I enjoy using 4x5 BW film for landscape. Wouldn't 8x10 make better photos for me? Nope, because I won't carry an 8x10 camera all the way to the places I shoot. Many people aren't even interested in carrying a tripod. And yet some photogs seem to be quite capable at creating compelling photographs with gear that supposedly has less potential quality.

 

As far as perceived quality/ability differences between film and digital today, all you have to have is an inkling of how software and hardware technology will change in the next 10 to 20 years to understand that in the near future photogs will be doing things with digital that we never imagined possible with film: higher ISOs, higher resolution, greater dynamic range, higher quality of printing, etc... Just as photogs who had to make and process their own plates in the field couldn't do the things one can do with a roll of film, a hand holdable SLR, and a corner photo lab (among other convenient technological improvements). And as good as it gets, most photos will still be crap.

As a film photographer my hat is off to you, Wigwam. Your response is one of the most thoughtful on this subject that I have yet read, and the most accurate, at least from my point of view. I cannot add anything to your post other than to say that you have summed up my feelings on the subject very well.

 

- Randy

I'm sure there are other members in my situation. I left photography in the mid-1970s and returned to it in 2003. I sold my kit and in that period owned only a film p&s. Once I used a cousin's Olympus slr for a few weeks.

 

So, I went from an era of b&w film photography into the digital era with little in between. During the hiatus, I studied painting and from 1988 forward, computer graphics. I use film and digital cameras now.

 

For the life of me, I cannot detect a difference assuming examples of similar quality. Where I find a difference is the answer to the question: what is the photograph?

 

For positive film the answer is easy: the slide. For print film, it is a bit more complex: it is the negative and any positive of it the photographer says is the positive of the negative.

 

But for digital it is what? The jpeg out of the camera? The unviewable raw data? The final 16bit flattened tiff? The psd with all the layers? The jpeg sent to the printer?

When I look at a photograph I do believe that the last thing on my mind is: "I wonder if it was shot with film or digital?" I'm either moved or not. The same is true when I listen to music - and there are a lot of similarities in terms of what's happened with respect to how the crafts are practiced and recorded for others to enjoy over the years.

 

After all if one doesn't write down or record the music no one else will ever hear it. And if the photographer never shows or prints his photograph, then it's a bit like that tree falling in the forest that may or may not make a sound.

 

I prefer digital even though I began my journey trying to figure all this out with film, many years ago, in a community college B&W darkroom. So I like to think anyway that I do have some appreciation for the "art" of film photography from taking the picture to producing the print - and when done well - it is indeed an art.

 

But I don't find digital photography to be less so in order to arrive at what I want. In many ways it can be more difficult even with all the widgets, gizmos and digital doo-dads we use.

 

I think the analogy to music is apt. I recall 25 years ago how difficult and expensive it was for a band to rent studio time. And having 16 tracks (wow!) was almost inconceivable. (Much of The Beatles' earliest work was recorded with four) Today everybody's got a "studio" in their PC for all intents and purposes.

 

Now the music hasn't gotten any better, (or necessarily worse; that's just each person's likes, dislikes and opinions) but recording music has been "brought to the masses" much like digital photography has been.

 

But... If you were a crappy musician 25 years ago in that $500/hour studio you'll sound just as bad as you would today with a copy of "Garage Band" and a Mac. Conversely, if you were a "monster" musician you'll sound great whether you used a 16-track board back in the 70's and played it on a 33 1/3rd RPM vinyl record or a copy of Soundforge today, then played it on an Ipod. A good musician is a good musician and I think the same can be said for photographers regardless of the medium they choose.

 

The media and the methods have changed. There's nothing that will save someone from lack of talent and/or imagination - even Photoshop running on a Quad-Core processor with all the plug-ins in the world. It's still just as easy to take a bad photo (and make a subsequently bad print) with film as it is digital and just as hard to do it well, irrespective of the methods and media one chooses.

Another aspect that is little realised or addressed, is how digital perhaps hurts photography as an artform just as it was about to reach its time.

 

Photography has had a hard time breaking into the mainstream art world as a qualified "artform".

 

Stieglitz and others said back in the day how the new 35mm photogs shooting 100 shots and selecting the best ones was bad for photography. And there is reason for this.

 

I use only film, and can't stand the process or qualities of digital imaging, and I am very computer literate! I simply cannot get into it. People talk of conveniece, but I don't see it.

 

 

Then again, as said above, it is the result that matters. It must be a slap in the face as to those above working for 30-40 yrs in film, mastering the craft and indeed ART of developing a unique "one-of-a-kind" work to have it all replaced by 1s and zeros.

 

Are there any (artists) on this board using photography strictly as a form of expression?

 

I am curious as to others' opinions on this topic. If I'm running off the path, my apologies.

 

Anyway, here's to photography always having a proper place in the art world!

 

Tim

Right now, there's a carpenter carrying out some work in my studio.

 

After 34 years of honing his skills on a daily basis, he's a joy to watch. Sometimes he cuts a bit of wood with a handsaw, sometimes with an electric one - I don't know what informs his choice because I don't have his skills, if I was doing it I would use electric tools simply because I find that they produce acceptable results more easily - just like digital.

 

Now, the difference between his cuts made by hand and his cuts made by machine are obvious, but the accuracy and quality is neither better nor worse. He chooses a particular tool because it suits him to do so, and so do I when I have a choice.

 

Hopefully, after a lifetime of experience with using film from 10"x8" to 35mm, I don't need the safety net of Photoshop, but none the less I shoot the vast majority of my work on digital, mainly for commercial reasons but partly I suspect because I'm lazy and the carpenters' maxim of 'Measure twice, cut once' doesn't seem to be as important with digital.

I photograph as a hobby.

 

Yesterday I took 110 pictures, in less than 2 hours, experimenting, and learning.

 

The cost of processing would have been too expensive for me, so digital is my saviour, and its allowed me to see instantly where some of my mistakes are.

 

I'd never go back to film!

<blockquote><i>

"Then again, as said above, it is the result that matters. It must be a slap in the face as to those above working for 30-40 yrs in film, mastering the craft and indeed ART of developing a unique "one-of-a-kind" work to have it all replaced by 1s and zeros."

</i></blockquote>

<p>The telegraph replaced the Pony Express in the US West. A telegraph operator who was especially good was known as a 'good fist' and was as valuable as a star athelete today. The best artists could identify each other's fists by their unique rythmns.</p>

 

<p>The first telegraph message was 'What Hath God Wrought?'</p>

 

<p>And the wire went silent, replaced by the sibilant whistle of the voice, amplitude modulated over the ether.</p>

<blockquote><i>

"Another aspect that is little realised or addressed, is how digital perhaps hurts photography as an artform just as it was about to reach its time."</i></blockquote>

<p>With respect, here is someone who sees it differently - this article was published today:</p>

<a href="http://www.rocktownweekly.com/artsandentertainment_details.php?AID=9149&sub=Escape">The Left-Brained Artist</a>

<blockquote><i>''If it weren?t for technology, Doherty says he may have never been interested in photography. He?s a product of the digital era, he says, someone who never had the patience, or the budget, for film photography.

 

"Maybe one out of 20 pictures would be any good," he said. "I thought it was a colossal waste of money."''

</i></blockquote>

<p>He's 55 years old, and claims he never would have been able to make art if it had not been for digital cameras. So perhaps digital technology is not 'hurting' art quite so much as making it possible for more people to find the artist inside of themselves. Just a thought.</p>

Let me also chime in that Wigwam's response was excellent, as they usually are.

 

Maybe I'm not nearly as skilled as many here, rarely can I look at two photographs and determine which is shot on film and which is shot digitally. A few years ago, yeah, it was really easy to spot the digi-print, but today, digital has caught up, and most anything that can be done in the darkroom can be done in Photoshop. Certainly the end product is close enough that few outside of an elite group of photographers (and I say "elite" this time meaning those who are very experienced and very good, and not those who have the snobbiest attitudes) can spot the difference.

 

Perhaps then part of the debate grows out of the darkroom artisan's fear that his beloved craft might be threatened with extinction as digital continues to take over the marketplace. Perhaps someday, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. And certainly, for those who the smell of developer serves as a muse, hey, if by shooting on film means you personally might be able to produce that much better of an end product because it means you're all the more inspired, then by all means, have a ball. I shot film for years, and personally, I find greater inspiration now shooting digitally. To each his own.

 

I've said it before, a car with a stick shift and a car with an automatic transmission will both do the job of getting you from point A to point B, equally efficiently. The auto is easier, but I find the drive with a stick shift a lot more involving and a lot more fun. When I get to Grandma's house, she doesn't care how I got there, only that I got there ... but I enjoy the drive a lot more with the stick.

Since I can't tell the difference, it comes down to the cameras and which kinds I enjoy using and those are manual 35mm cameras and that means they are all film cameras (an electronic camera, film or digital, that can be used manually doesn't make it a manual camera). It wouldn't matter if those cameras had digital innards rather than film, but the reality is they are film cameras. If I use an electronic camera, it is digital.

 

Setting aside commercial realities, convenience and cost, I think it best practice to use the kit that is a pleasure to work, and which gives confidence and assurance to the photographer as they are working. Whether it is a digital or film kit seems an issue of less importance.

It's about size and money. Small digital is affordable. Large film is affordable. But basically, it is really about over.

To me, it's about progress and human nature (i.e. resistance to change). I grew up without calculators, personal computers, PDAs, iPods, and the like. Started developing and printing B&W in the 6th grade. Now that I use and depend on calculators, computers, a PDA, an iPod, I wonder how I ever got along without them.

 

Is digital better? If not, it's getting there fast. It's quick, convenient, and less trouble than film. It's great for me, because I constantly travel for my work, and can't haul around a wet darkroom.

 

I also shoot MF and 4x5LF, when I want the quality of the bigger formats, or a camera that can do what digital can't, or when I feel like taking my sweet time (as well as with the processing..by others). No doubt in my mind, though, that digital will catch up/get inexpensive enough to obsolete them as well.

 

In the end, in a few years, the folks shooting film will be like the folks that like old cars...very cool, but maybe not very practical.

It's not about what you think or what I think. It's the attitudes of the venues where you show your work . . . including this one (which has a decidedly pro-digital bias, based on the TRP.) A lot of galleries have a clear film bias. Why? In part because a lot of collectors do, for a variety of reasons.

<i> he says, someone who never had the patience, or the budget, for film photography</i><p>

Indeed, it's the instant gratification thing. That's okay. He feels good about it. He may as well be cutting cookies.

You belittle what he does. The story says people like and buy his work. It is art. Cutting cookies or no, it's art.

 

In the early days of photography, one who used pre-made glass exposures and did not compound and prepare their own emulsions would be said to have been taking shortcuts, cheating, indulging in what we would now call 'instant gratification'.

 

Is it possible that a person can make art without having to bear the cross of the previous generation? Or is that pain a prerequisite, and if so, why aren't we all deficient who do not coat copper plates with silver solutions?

"Sometimes Doherty...says a little prayer as he clicks his camera."

 

Thank God for image stabilization, too.

The argument of film vs digital made here reminds me of the battles of the typesetters fighting their replacement by computers. Sorry, that's the way the World turns. <p>I am sure there would be photographers of the 1880s who would argue how crappy 35mm film is, and then there were the B&W types who thought color photography was tacky. If you can do darkroom work and want to do it and enjoy it, then do so, but I think there are many people who have not been in a darkroom for years and are glad of the new freedom for artistic expression digital photography and photoshop gives them. <p>As the French say "Chacun á son goût" (Everybody in his own taste).

'Cave ab homine unius libri'

Wigwam, I had Latin lessons almost 60 years ago. Please help me here.