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

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

<p>

No! I do not have all the answers, but I do see what might be a significant line of thought.<p>

The most strident objections seem to come from the photographers who know cameras, light, in essence

all about photography and do not need an LCD preview, nor post-processing <i>to the extent that

Photoshop fosters</i>.<p>

The second objectors which can include the first (above) are those who use film and really know how it

differs remarkably. It really does differ. <p>

Persons who began with digital rarely can see the difference. So be it.<p>

And I don't mean all this in a Bad Way.

I like to look at them as two similar but different tools. For certain effects I'll print them in a wet darkroom and then scan the prints. It's like a Phillips and a Flat-head screwdriver (for me).

I'm restricted to film because the companies I work for don't have fancy photo scanners (they do have other fancy scanners) or software for photo manipulation, and some of the remote places I work that don't have more than a mere photo CD copy service. Heavy industrial engineering companies generally don't need it.

 

If I read correctly the arguments, it's about relative quality of the eventual product (print size, slide show, monitor), the freedom to shoot-review-delete/save (I, for one, don't edit until years after the photos were taken), archival properties (changing formats), mechanical vs. electrical, and planned, or not, obsolescence.

You know why I want to get a digital SLR instead of my 35mm Nikon? Because developing photos is ridiculously expensive, and with digital you can pick the ones you want. Plus, you can just set the ISO sensitivity instead of going out and getting a new roll.

<i>If I read correctly the arguments, it's about relative quality of the eventual product

(print size, slide show, monitor) [...]</i><p>

No, it is not. It is about the differences, but more important it is about how film

photographers <u>who know what they are doing</u> don't need all the onboard crap

such as preview, histograms and all that. <p>

And finally, film is different except to the uncaring, the unseeing, the uninformed.<p>

? No ?

<p>

:)

I rather feel that one of the cores of the debate, indeed the part that brings the most emotional heat, has to do with the perception of the photographic craft versus the photograph.

 

To the film practitioner, especially the ones who labor over their hard-won darkroom skills, it is hurtful and a slap in the face to be told that Photoshop can do it as well as they ever could - worse if that can actually be demonstrated beyond just being claimed. Note that I do not necessarily agree that PS can do whatever the darkroom artist can, I am just noting the arguments I've read and heard.

 

I listen to the filmists and I hear anger, hurt, and pain. They talk about the love and effort they put into their prints - the carefully-selected papers, the toners, the lenses, the processes. They speak of the tonality, the gradation, the toe and the shoulder, they speak of their fondness for the process and their craftsmanship.

 

None of this is present in the digital darkroom. Beyond the hard work and real talent it takes to learn to really use PS to its potential, it is about skill and not about pain. There is no poetry in the process, there is only the goal to be considered.

 

Rolande Barthe's Camera Lucida speaks of this, even before the age of digital photography. When he asks what a photograph is, and then tries to answer that question, he notes the photograph is seen as a different thing by different people. The art of the photographer is one art, shared by digital and film photographers. The art of the craft is another art, and this belongs in the domain of the darkroom alchemist. The print, the final result, this is what remains when the photographer's hands fall to his sides, and he surrenders what he or she had done and waits for judgment. This too is shared by both film and digital photographers.

 

I care for photographs. I do not appreciate an ordinary photograph made in an extraordinary way if that process does not give the photograph some extraordinary value that I can appreciate with my senses. But many artists do, and I think most of them resent the incipient loss of their informal guild of artisans.

<i>You know why I want to get a digital SLR instead of my 35mm Nikon? Because developing

photos is ridiculously expensive [...] </i><p>

That might be true if you don't do it yourself. On the other-hand, experienced film

photographers don't shotgun their view. They shoot less. They care about outcomes that the

person who has done only digital cannot see, appreciate - they have no such experience.

Personally, I'm not hurt nor am I in any pain about what someone else thinks or professes or does. For me, the final product is all that matters. The "map" is not the "place". For me, how much time I spend in the darkroom is irrelevant. If I didn't like the results I wouldn't do it. I can still be thrilled by someone's digital image, or repulsed by someone's film image (and vice versa). It's like the Mac vs PC thing. Don't people have better things to do with their talents than hitting on someone's technique, when the result is all that matters (most of the time).

<i>It's like the Mac vs PC thing.A</i><p>

No it is not. Each produce the very same digital output.

"...but more important it is about how film photographers who know what they are doing..."

 

There are many FILM cameras that use the programmer's, not my own, brain as well. Do I really have to point that out to you?

Film can be reasonably priced, for instance I buy Tri X in 50' rolls and wind my own cartridges, then develop them myself. For color prints, I get the roll developed but not printed.

 

As far as the darkroom is concerned, I've spent a lot of time in the darkroom. I don't claim to be an expert printer. Likewise I've spent considerable time in Photoshop and am not an expert there either. The skills needed for each are VERY different but I don't think one is more "artistic" than the other -- they're just different.

 

The one thing I come back to comparing say my Contax RTS III with my Canon 5D digital is that it is SO helpful to be able to see what I'm getting when I'm getting it. I like the convenience of plugging in and getting my pictures downloaded faster than I can develop the roll and scan in the shots 6 at a time, but it's the instant feedback that makes all the difference. It's also nice to be able to come back with 5 or 500 shots as the situation demands than to have to segment off in 20 or 36 exposure rolls.

 

I'm not giving up my film cameras completely, but I'm really so happy with the digital results that I shoot film less and less. This makes me a little sad but it's the way it is. Now if I could just Leica to make a reasonably priced digital rangefinder (e.g. way less than $5000)

Pico, you missed my point. I meant that the Mac vs PC thing is a waste of time no matter what side you're on. The right tool is the one that works for you.

Im a die hard film guy but an intersting observation I had a couple of weeks ago. This image

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/400511728_9c2f72d630_b.jpg">Image</a>, previous posted on PN, was taken on Delta 100 6x7 medium format. It was the first time Ive used Delta 100 and although I love the detail and sharpness I felt there was something a miss. My eventual conclusion is that the format and fine grain of Delta 100 has tended to give it an almost digital capture look and what is missing (that I like) is a level of actuance that is typically afforded by a slightly more noticable grain structure.

<p>

So, for me at least, Im leaning towards thinking that many of the asthetic arguments for digital's cleaness ends up being a negative for me - <i>when considering B&W at least</i>.

<p>

Craig

I embrace both.... what it all boils down to is the camera is a tool, plain and simple. Digital, film... does it matter? I use digital professionally most of the time (for it's quickness shall we say), I can develop bw at home but still need to send out color film, but for my personal work I prefer film most of the time. I was educated on film, wet processing, darkroom printing. And this was only a few years ago.

 

I remember when my photo professor sent me over to a couple of the other departments to pick up all their printing papers, chemicals, and various darkroom equipment because they were switching to digital. I still keep in contact with my old professor, and they are still teaching film in Photo 101 at the University of RI.... thank goodness..

 

What I feel is a sadness, that an era seems to be ending. But then again I am one of those who embraces alternative processes, the traditional, and anything out of the ordinary. Maybe I've got my head stuck up my arse... but I really do believe I can "see" the difference in a film image vs a digital image..... and there is a difference, colors, grain, .... it's there. I see it! Call me crazy.... whatever... *shrug*

Digital is cheaper? I have spent far more on digital photography than I ever did (and continue

to do) on film photography. I like both; each has its strengths (which I try to use) and

weaknesses (which I try to avoid).

I have more than 35 years experience with film. I went to RIT for photography when 4x5 was the rule, though I soon left for other pursuits. There's definitely a sadness about the end of the film era; though it will remain in use by a small group of artists, the heyday of film is gone and it will never come back, baring some disaster that destroys all the computers. Not that that would be a completely bad thing. OTOH, my background is fairly technical. I understand the math under the hood of image processing software and am probably ahead of the curve when it comes to knowing how to extract the best results using digital methods. IMO, the differences between the best of film, and the best of digital, have nothing to do with quality. The two mediums are slightly different, one a bit better in one area, the other a bit better in some other. IMO again, people who see a huge difference are either not getting the best of each medium, are exaggerating differences that most people could barely detect, or are victims of some well known biases of the human brain. That, BTW, is an extremely interesting topic.

<i>Persons who began with digital rarely can see the difference. So be it.</i>

<p>

Well it's starting to sound like fairies then, isn't it: you have to believe in them to see them.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with your post, I want to commend you for your absolutely beautifully written response.

 

I rarely enjoy reading someone's post simply for the pleasure of having read it. Yours is one.

This thread is 5 years too late.

I like Conrad's post.

 

I was color printing in the late 60s before I even started 3 years of school. I consider myself among the best in color & B&W lab work, but switched to digital when it first came out with 'video' quality cameras. How about working on image editing on an XT in the mid 80s.

 

Every endeavor has the same arguments. Is acrylic better than oils for painting? Is LCD better than CRT? It never ceases.

 

You simply use what you prefer. In the 80s, I got upset when I couldn't capture the same wonderful skin color I liked so much when Kodak changed film technology. Now, I get even less with digital, but from a professional point of view, I get 10 times the work load done than I ever could with film. You think DSLRs cost more - how about RA4 digital printers? 100Gs gets you started - compare that to an enlarger & trays. But, I could never get 200 8x10s an hour from the trays, so it's a matter of choice.

 

The debate will never end and I for one look forward to the day when I can get back into the darkroom watch the image appear in the tray. Sad, but probably it's only a dream for me.

 

Doug

<i>There are many FILM cameras that use the programmer's, not my own, brain as well. Do I

really have to point that out to you?</i><p>

Good point. Aren't you glad your film cameras don't use MY brain?

The wheel. Economics. Economy of scale. Lateral fiscal equalisation. The dollar. The yen. The pound. The consumer. Opinion. Progress.

I much prefer to read a real book rather than online, but when it is read I reflect on the contents, not the medium.<p>

 

The other day I saw this guy <a href="http://www.mcdermottgallery.com/" >mcdermottgallery</a> and I was really moved.<p>

 

I have been fortunate enough to have been to many of these places but never did I "see" like what the photographer was able to capture and present. Only after I had gone through the gallery did I examine how they were made, which as it turns out, was with IR film.<p>

 

Film vs digital, does it matter? Well, of course it matters. But certainly no where near more than whether or not you were moved by the image(s).

It's like music. Kids today listen to their downloaded music from current bands and they think it's the greatest thing ever. But then I mention Joni Mitchell, and they say, "Who?".

 

The reason most people are going digital now is that most new cameras released / advertised / seen with their friends, are digital. The way they work - instant feedback and the power to instantly send that image across the world to Granny or cousin Ned, all helps with the way people (not just young people) expect the world to work today.

 

Then there's the quality issue. Some of it is actually opinion; I like Joni Mitchell more than the Kaiser Chiefs and I think Joni is clearly better, but opinions on that will doubtless vary.

 

Some people like the look of film, some people like the look of digital. Most of them have never done a side by side comparison, and most of them also don't go and look for a side by side comparison because it might blow a hole in their deeply held opinion.

 

And finally, some people are bigoted boneheads who put forward their opinion (on cameras, music, religion) as if it's the only possible opinion. And sadly p.n, like every other web forum, is full of them.

Surely it's about convenience v cost v quality. Ultimate quality has hardly improved since early 1900s but few of us would relish wet plate processing. I prefer medium format slide film but for news/sport/pr/reportage it has to be digital 35mm (nominal I know)and no argument. Everyone is in a hurry - my local papers come out two days earlier now thanks to digital and computer paste-up: but are they prepared to pay the costs of digital - they are not - they maintain it is cheaper - and so it might be if we freelances used the crap cameras they issue to staff. . So being lazy I use a good 35mm digital for convenience most of the time and a wee pocket compact with 400asa B&W for when the mood strikes. Same reason there's a longish zoom in the bag but that's the same whether film or digi. The medium format is still there and it will be coming out again when I get to do what I want instead of chasing shekels to pay for the latest update to chase shekels to pay for the.....