Digital VS. Film?

[keith_lubow]

I would say stick with what you've got.

 

Digital is fine if you are after convenience, speed, and sales more than anything else.

Otherwise, film is the best choice. You have so much more control with film. With either,

the final image depends more on the photographer than on anything else, and you have to

know what you are doing to get good results. If you like putting a lot of time and energy

into your photography, then stick with film. Only go digital if you are lazy, in a rush, or

strictly commercial/professional.

 

Keith

[edgreene]

Jeff Plomley<i>:Well, <br>1. I just printed an 18x24 image from Crawford Notch State Park on an Epson 7800 with the new Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl Paper.<br>2. <b>The original capture was with an EOS 1V and Velvia 50</b>.<br>3. Scan was on a Nikon 5000 in 16-bit mode with 16x oversampling at 4,000 ppi and subsequent work-up in photoshop.<br>5,6,7.<br>8.<b>Framed and mounted behind non-glare glass over the dresser it looks bloody spectacular. Most photographers that have seen the image think it is a medium format capture (since I used to shoot mamiya 6x7)</b>.</i><p>The numbers represent seven, maybe eight steps to a print from digital. And what are the attendant costs vis-a-vis film to (JOBO) dry to dry processing?<br>Consider that a film camera, and assuming it is a quality camera with a quality lens, would have been 1. snap, 2. process, 3. artwork (spotting if needed), 4. frame.<br>How is it then that people say film is too onerous to fool with?<br>And please: whatever you do to get to the negative is <i>processing</i>, not post processing. Nor is dodging and burning a print (when D&B is even done) ``"post procesing``.

[andrew robertson]

"Andrew, what service cost you $250 for such prints?"

 

To get any decent Ilfochrome at that size $250 is about the minimum. Other fine large

conventional prints (i.e. with an enlarger and an internegative) with archival quality materials

can approach that cost as well.

[jim_doty]

Do you like shooting with film? Do you want to scan, post, and print a lot of photos or a few? I've found that shooting digitally speeds up the "click" to "digital print" process since scanning takes some time experience, and skill. For just a few photos, scanning is fine. For a bunch I prefer digital.

 

You may want a Nikon V to scan some of your current library of slides, whether or not you go digital. The more basic question is, What do you want to shoot with in the future?

 

I did both. I bought a good film scanner first and eventually got a DSLR.

 

Some folks go digital, don't care for it that much and go back to film. Before you drop a bundle, I would suggest you test the waters first.

 

You could rent a digital SLR for a few days, use your current lenses, and shoot like crazy. That might tell you if you want to cross over to digital for your future work. Or buy or borrow a digital point and shoot. That is how I tested the digital waters.

 

After all the advice you receive, only you can decide how you want to work in the future.

 

Jim

[kevinconnery]

Ed Green wrote:

<ul><i>And please: whatever you do to get to the negative is processing, not post processing. <b>Nor is dodging and burning a print </b>(when D&B is even done)<b> ``"post procesing``.</b></i></ul>

No? That's an interesting claim. Does anyone else agree, or is it your unique definition?

[timages]

There is a very good article in the British Journal of Photography by a Renowned Printer Danny Pope entitled 'Why Film still Rules' (www.bjp-online.com) He says if you use Film you should be scanning Prints rather then Negs. I use Film for varied reasons, to a certain extent I beleive Digital takes away a lot of the skill and enjoyment of Photography. With film I have an influence on the outcome in so many and varied ways, even before I pick up the Camera, my choice of Film for example. Also the Cameras themselves, I like something substantial, with a bit of weight to it, not something that feels and looks like a kids toy, the 350D for example. If I did get a digital it would have to be a top spec Pro SLR, simply because of the feel and handling of it. Thats another factor, the cost is so greater, I would have to buy a Photo quality Printer, constantly replacing ink cartridges, buying decent paper. Some people actually think they save money going digital? There are to many reasons to mention here as to why I prefer Film. I am thinking of getting a 20D just to play with (like it says in the adverts) and I like to dabble in digital imaging, I have adobe and Paint Shop Pro, though I dont yet know how to use them Fully. But my Film Cameras/Printing will take Precedence.

[robert lee]

I believe the article is titled "His Dark Material."

 

"He says if you use Film you should be scanning Prints rather then Negs."

 

Pope is wrong. One can make whatever assertions about the aesthetic superiority of film, but it's just that: arguments about aesthetics. However, a one generation removed scan from print is _always_ technically inferior to scans of the original film.

 

Read the article again. It's simply the lamentation of a master craftsman being obsoleted by fundamental shifts in technology and the market. Rather sad.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"It's simply the lamentation of a master craftsman being obsoleted by fundamental shifts in technology and the market. Rather sad."

 

People should work in whatever medium they enjoy. I love being in the darkroom. I shoot digital, too. And I'm happy with the results that I get from both.

 

It seems that the main purpose of film vs. digital threads is to validate personal choices. Just take more pictures. Be happy.

[timages]

I agree with Robert Budding, It should not be a competition between Film and digital, they are different mediums towards the same Goal. Everytime something new comes out people say its the end of whatever went before, T.V. was suppose to kill the Radio, T.V. would Kill Theatre, etc etc. Its all Bull, People will use and work with their own Preferences.

[bobatkins]

The main advantage of digital is that it generates endless discussion and fills what would be otherwise empty websites and magazines.

 

If digital didn't exist, we'd have to invent it.

[nolefan32]

I completely agree with the sentiment that an artist should work in the medium they are happiest in. While I do believe digital has many advantages over film (and sorry, Bob, but generating worthless conversations isn't one of them), that doesn't mean that film has been rendered "inferior" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A new technology is just that, a new technology. Some will embrace the advances it brings, others will wax nosatalgic about the old ways. After all, there are still those who believe a "real" photographer focuses for himself and sets his own exposures.

 

The argument could be made that in the end, there's very little (if any) difference between a print made by a photographer who shot a fully manual camera and a photographer who shot a similar image with a Canon EOS in full auto mode. But if the photographer with the manual camera gets more pleasure from that greater level of involvement, so be it. After all, a car with an automatic transmission may get me where I'm going just as effectively as my stickshift, but gosh I do find driving the stickshift to be loads of fun.

 

On the other hand, I think any discussion about film vs. digital regarding the quality of image they produce is moot; digital has come a very long way in a very short time, and it's getting really, really tough now to tell the difference between the two when presented similarly (i.e., making optical prints of both).

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Good points, David. I am not a professional photographer so, for me, the journey matters at least as much as the destination. But for pros, time is money. And for people who love convenience and quick results, digital is fantastic.

 

I love the smell of stop bath. And I drive a stick shift.

[robert lee]

"People should work in whatever medium they enjoy."

 

Certainly. This is why it's great to be an amateur, to be able to participate in photography without having to depend on it for the daily bread.

 

The digest of the Pope interview is that his business is shrinking, that his skills and visions are just under-appreciated by the undeserving peasant customers. Pope scans prints to mollify their stupid clamor for digital files. And color profiles? Why it's just another artificial, plastic interposition; it's "just math."

 

The article isn't about digital or film. At the core, it's about Pope's failure to adapt professionally, about his bewilderment and non-comprehension with a workflow that the business environment now demands. This particular portrayal of the anguished-artist that-the-world-doesn't-understand just doesn't work well.