Is film now just a digital storage medium?

[pete_andrews]

Applied Science Fiction <a href="http://www.asf.com/products/pic/"> (ASF)</a> appear to have made good on their promise of a 'dry' processor for colour film. The rumour is that they've put their first 'digital PIC' unit out in the real world for evaluation.<br>Since the final output is a scanned digital file, and the film image is destroyed in the process, this effectively relegates film to being a digital storage medium, like Smartmedia, or Compactflash.<p>Is this one giant leap down the road to promoting universal acceptance of digital imaging?<br>Now, I don't consider myself to be any more paranoid than the next man, but I rather think it is.<br>Once the compact point'n'shoot masses get used to the idea of having a CD returned with their prints, and not a set of negatives, then I think the general demise of film can't be far behind.<br>If you're still wearing sabots, prepare to throw them now!

[bong]

But, Pete, if film were to go away then no one would need the digital

PIC either. Now, if they can just tweak the process to handle B&W

negatives with options for N-, N, and N+ development...

[charlie_strack]

Pete:

 

<p>

 

I suspect silver-based photography will be around for quite a while.

 

<p>

 

For example, I was at my local photo store recently and remarked on

the large variety and quantity of films they stocked. The counter man

thought there were just too many millions of cameras already out

there, in use, for film to go away anytime soon. Many believe if you

buy quality equipment it should last a lifetime, so the need to buy a

new technology isn't as pressing as the digital camera manufacturer's

would have us believe.

 

<p>

 

The art director at the company where I work, of course, uses digital

imaging software and manipulation techniques. Still, most our product

shots originate on silver-based film and are then scanned. The

photographer uses electronic flash, with multiple "pops". This

technique doesn't seem usable for digital imaging, and I don't know

if the digital cameras/backs have the sensitivity needed for one-pop

flash work.

 

<p>

 

She (the art director) believes silver-based photography will be

around quite a while, too. Her point is that you can capture a high

resolution image faster on film than digitally.

 

<p>

 

Finally, I suspect that all printed digital images have a much more

finite life than silver based images, at least for black and white.

Simply because the digital prints are based on dyes, where as black &

white is based on metal.

 

<p>

 

I suspect film and digital photography can and will co-exist, and

each helping to build the market for the other.

 

<p>

 

Time, of course, will tell.

[dan_smith]

How does the process work with an 8x10 negative for contact prints on

Azo? Or for contact printing on any other paper? Or contact printing

using platinum/palladium, albumen, cyanotype, carbon or so many other

creative processes? Or with polaroid originals for polaroid

transfers? As for the 'masses' wanting digital, Cd's or computer

images, don't hold your breath. Sitting around waiting for a damn

computer to come on, download, display on crappy cheap screens, print

out on printers used once every 3 weeks with the constant cost of

head cleaning & drying cartridges, computer glitches, power

fluctuations, balky CD drives, kids jelly smeared hands trying to put

in a CD and all the other damnable computer related problems...

looking at a photo that comes back from the processor in the

supermarket, on Fuji Crystal Archive, while you shop, is a lot easier.

Not to mention the fact that this is a B&W list, not one for the fake

B&W printed on color paper.

Computers are nice, but a real pain in the butt. Looking at photos,

especially photo quality in real prints from excellent printers, is

NOT a computer project. Try as they might, the best digital B&W is

not where the best real negatives & prints in B&W are right now.

Don't think they will be there in the forseeable future either.

Just opened a show of "Scenic Utah" at the city Museum Gallery in

Brigham City, Utah & a few digital prints are really nice. But put

next to fine Ilfochromes in color or next to 12x20 platinums & 8x20

and 8x10 contact prints on Azo and Forte, there is no comparison as

far as total tonal range, sharpness & fine detail.

Computers are fine for "as good as" statements when you compare.

But "as good as" gets you Madonna, not Marilyn Monroe and no matter

how you slice it, "as good as" in Madonna is definately not marilyn.

In digital prints, "as good as" is a substitute for the real thing,

not the real thing.

If you want the real thing in pixelography, use it for its own sake &

explore its possibilities & quit trying to imitate real photographs.

It is a creative medium in its own right & will only get better,

especially if you push its strengths & quit trying to force it into a

copycat only medium.

[melvin_bramley]

Response to the above comments by Dan smith....I wish I had said

that!!

A wonderfull response.

[silverhalide1949]

I imagine many people spoke the same way about painting in the 19th century. Here we are in the 21st and people are still painting with oils, watercolors, acrylics (a 20th century development), drawing with charcoal etc. Photography did not supplant painting and after a brief period of emulating painting, photography found it's niche. It is even considered art. I can see digital taking over the commercial field someday but as long as there are companies like Bereger, Forte, Ilford et al making photographic materials, there will be people like me to buy them. I plan on using my darkroom until "The last silver halide crystal is extinct". RO

[pete_andrews]

Hey! Don't shoot the messenger. I was quite surprised myself, that ASF

actually got this thing off the ground.<br>When it was previewed at

Photokina it met with so much scepticism that many reviewers thought

it was some sort of hoax.<p>I do see a sinister long-term anti-film,

or pro-digital, agenda behind it though, because the process seems

quite ludicrous from any other perspective.

[ken_miller3]

I'll just add my two cents here (or is that five in Canada?)

 

<p>

 

I'm a software consultant, and as such spend many hours working on

computers. I'm well versed in what they can, and can't do.

 

<p>

 

Back in February I purchased my first 4x5 (Calumet 45N), with one

lens. I had some moderate success with it, but was making made slow

progress. Hiking through the mountains forced me to get something a

bit more portable, so I picked up a Toyo AII. Two more lenses,and I'm

loaded for bear.

 

<p>

 

I was still having problems making that 'eye-grabbing' print tho. I

took a course with Ray McSavaney in Yosemite in October, and learned

*a lot*. Negatives improved, prints improved.

 

<p>

 

To bring a somewhat long story and end, I finally made that one print

that, when mounted, just about floored me. There's just something

about a silver print, and the effort required to make it that makes it

all the more special. While in Yosemite I was priviledged to see

quite a few Adams originals, and there was also something about them

that was special, that I doubt could be replicated with digital

technology. Close maybe, but not the same.

 

<p>

 

So, speaking as one who works in a digital world almost continuously,

the break to an completely analog world is a joy. I can't see having

as much fun sitting in front of a computer moving pixels around...too

easy, really, and once you've made a print, you can generate 1000s of

the same prints. Who want to do that? A poster manufacturer. That

ain't me!

 

<p>

 

As I mentioned to one fellow on the workshop: I just might get sucked

into this (large format photography). His reply to me: too late.

 

<p>

 

He was right.

 

<p>

 

-klm.

[john_stockdale2]

Digital is going to keep getting better. Silver will always be

incomparable. Keep getting those silver prints out there, so people

can see how good they are! Inspire the next generation.

[dean_lastoria]

OK, wife drags me to quilting show. Machine quilted quilts have

better stitching, no doubt, but they tend to look awful. Hand

stitching is a bit messier, but boy the whole thing looks better. If

you hand stitch a quilt, you aren�t going to use gaudy fabric. Carry

over to photography, my 8x10 may be a pain in the neck (but much less

than a queen size hand quilted epic) and because it is so much work

to lug, develop, and contact print, I'm going to take much more care

in what I do. The sewing machine didn't kill hand stitching, though I

imagine digital will have the same impact as the sewing machine.

Dean

[ken_miller3]

Speaking of quilting - my wife's major hobby was the primary reason I

took up LF - to compete and perhaps win a bit of wallspace :-)

 

<p>

 

Seriously tho - she does beautiful stuff, and if my photographs can

compete with her quilts, I'll be happy! 'Course, I'm monochrome, and

she's color, so it's not really fair - for her!

 

<p>

 

(Don't tell her I said that)

 

<p>

 

-klm.